And ironically enough, historical posts from him are calling for the doxing of other people. But yeah, it's just depressing to see CNN or any other new media outlet be anything other than professional and impartial.
There are mob mentality debates to be had over whether doxxing should be an acceptable way to publicly shame shit head racist. The slippery slope going from shit head racist to say, getting someone fired for moderating a message board with links to porno, etc so forth. I am far more supportive of random internet users uncovering some trolls identity over a huge media company holding it over someones head. It is really two debates. The implications of a major news company wielding that power over views they don't like is fucked up.
I think this piece at Politico provides some really valuable context to how journalists are feeling right now: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/06/hanassholesolo-anti-semitic-posts-215344 They are 100% in under-siege mode, and they're not wrong. I doubt there's a single journalist in this country that would be surprised by a Charlie Hebdo type event in an American newsroom. President Trump has repeatedly and consistently riled up an already deranged and aggrieved group against the media, and I have literally zero surprise that CNN and others are finally taking off the gloves.
I also believe that they brought a large part of this on themselves, by being entertainment, and picking political sides, rather than doing their job of reporting the news. At this point I think that they are political pawns spreading their own version of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), and it's doing nobody a service. The mere fact that they are corporations, owned by individuals, that are trying to make money, means that they are more entertainment than actual news. They all have pretty well gone down that slippery slope of pandering to their audience, because it brings in revenue, and makes demographics easier to measure and sell to advertisers. I've pretty much given up on them at this point, and those people who get 100% of their talking points from "their" news. It's funny how you can tell who watches Fox, vs CNN, vs MSNBC, just by their casual banter. I went golfing over the weekend and my friend and I were teamed up with another 2 guys, one old guy who was "Fox News" all the way, and the other was a middle-aged MSNBC viewer. They basically regurgitated the views of what news they watched, and it was kind of interesting to just watch the interactions. I'm fairly skeptical of everything right now... because everything I'm fed seems to have an agenda, and is presented without nuance or complexity. Any news you can get in a 140 characters or less isn't really news, it's a headline.
I'm pasting these here from the WDT, because I'm curious: And, then what do you think would happen? What is the US immediate response to NK, within hours and days? And, what does the longer response look like, within months and years? And, what is the longer term impact on the US: travel, west coast security, military patrols and Korean area presence, spending and defense initiatives? I'd be curious, if NK nuked, say Los Angeles. It seems they'd have to fly over Japan. What is Japan's detection capability or ours in the area? Could they actually hit LA without us shooting it down? Because detonation would require a completely different response than an attempt, right?
I was wondering the same thing myself. Firstly, I have to think that there are some US Navy assets between the Norks and continental US that would be able to take out anything that they lobbed that way. If I'm not mistaken, didn't the White House put out such a statement, saying that they have technology that could take that out, not too long ago? Assuming you take that as a valid assertion, then I don't see any worries about glowing shorelines or glass craters. I think the real concern on that front is South Korea... how quickly can they react, and how effective would the defences be against an attack. But the fact they actually took the shot would unleash some shit. I do not see any kind of a nuclear reaction, but I do see a shit-ton of monster conventional bombs flattening any major structure that the Norks have, basically rendering them useless. I kind of think that the recent deployment of that MOAB was also to kind of show China and Best Korea their capability. The hard part is going to be to do it in such a way that doesn't result in the Chinese becoming unhinged, and I tend to think that this is what a lot of the recent US/Chinese meetings have been about... discussing the results of Best Korea actually crossing a line. Because I think everyone knows deep down that it's going to happen, because the man is a fucking idiot. I would not be surprised if US and China have already agreed upon a reaction plan and designated "safe" targets to blow the fuck up in the event of something like that, assuring that the stuff China is REALLY interested in (all the natural resources, etc), is left intact so that it doesn't impact their supply lines. After all, trade is actually up over the last 5 months between North Korea and China. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/china-trade-north-korea-imports-off-sharply-48466664
A great circle route from Korea to Los Angeles would pass by the northern tip of Japan, but more importantly would pass over the Aleutian islands. The US's strongest anti-ICBM capability resides in Alaska, and my guess is we'd have an extremely good chance of shooting down a single ICBM from NK. Where our missile shield is weak is against a huge number of warheads with active counter measures like what Russia would fire if it came to that. As far as detection goes, I assume we'd detect it at launch; no need to wait for it to fly over Japan. My guess on the US response is that our counter-attack would be in the air pretty much immediately after launch detection. It would be a massive, but non-nuclear response aimed at destroying every piece of military hardware in the entire country.
The question I have is, does NK legitimately have the capability to fire something outside of their own country let alone be able to make it all the way to the US? Whenever I read a news report of them celebrating the success of bomb/rocket detonation I conjure up the image of a middle schooler bragging to all of his friends that he totally felt a boob, that one time.
Well they wouldn't be able to hit the US. The current early warning system is likely state of the art and the original BMEWS was designed with a Soviet-US war in mind. The missile would be intercepted and shot down somewhere over the ocean or immediately after launch. The immediate response would be a US-led or US-Chinese coalition to topple the NK government and kill Kim Jong-Un and his generals as well as destroy critical infrastructure with conventional weapons. Trump may be dumb, be he's not suicidal enough to use nukes that close to China. Squadrons of strike fighters and strategic bombers would be used to take out forward artillery emplacements as well as an suspected missile launch sites/facilities and AA capability. Next would be cruise missile barrages against secondary targets such as communication and electrical infrastructure, static HQs, airfields, ammo depots, naval anchorages and major military bases. The next phase would be a ground invasion of NK to wipe out any mechanized formations and troop movements. Alpha teams would be deployed to capture strategic military targets and government buildings. Once the government has fully toppled, some sort of pan-Asian conference would need to assemble to figure out a transition plan.
If NK pulls the trigger and the US gets involved, that entire country will not exist within a matter of weeks. Their air forces will be eliminated at a pretty dramatic rate (something like 40% an hour for the first 48 hours) until they have no air capability. Their land forces are considerable (if not laughably equipped), and they have spent 50 years preparing for an engagement, and therein lies the problem. The terrain is incredibly unfriendly to either side, and it's likely there will be pockets of resistance ad nauseum for 50 more years. We can completely eliminate their traditional military elements quickly and comprehensively, but an actual ground invasion will take months or years, something we will have no stomach for without a hell of a cause. NK can pull one big trigger one time and put an ICBM in the sky and likely fuck up Seoul with a tremendous bombing campaign. They will have a few hours to do 90% of the damage they can inflict in the entire conflict. In other words, their entire operation is predicated on one massive first salvo and then shrinking into the terrain and hiding from the ensuing retaliation. That strategy speaks very well to inviting their Russian or Chinese neighbors to bail them out. We have around 50-80k men in SK at any given time, and the vast majority of them are near the border or within what we know to be NK's bombing range. So, it's a pretty significant chunk of manpower, not to mention the casualties that result from a sudden unexpected attack on civilians. The prevailing wisdom is that if the current regime can't maintain power, they will lash out and provoke a response (likely from a newly-militarized Japan). They would rely on an aggressive Chinese military to save their ass from a 1st world power, and Japan would be the only likely target that China or Russia would support and that wouldn't immediately respond with a full scale war. It's unlikely they would attempt to strike the US, because....well, why would they? That's a certainty: we would retaliate to the fullest extent of our military capability in the region, and no actor would dissuade us from dismantling the regime.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/...lear-war.html?referer=https://www.google.com/ I don't know enough about military weaponry and capabilities to critique the article but from my reading had a lot of good information related to this discussion
True, and a full military conflict would be awful. We've provided SK with a ton of anti-artillery tech over the last 20 years, but its still not enough to fully stop a full bombardment from the north. Stealth bombers can only fuel up and fly so fast. Ideally it would be nice to get China to do the dirty work, but the joint Chinese-Russian proposal that the US stop exercises with SK in return for a pause of NK missile development is a joke and not very serious. If we really want China to wake the fuck up and start taking action here, perhaps the solution would be to arm Japan with nuclear weapons. They have vast developments in nuclear technology and could turn around functional SRBMs very quickly, even without the US just handing them over. North Korea may not keep China up at night, but a nuclear Japan might.
Very interesting thought. I think we need a better understanding of what make the Chinese tick, their view of the west. China holds the trump card with the Norks. For some reason they are unwilling to use it despite the Norks being a constant annoyance and a bad neighbor that makes business much more difficult. I get the feeling the Chinese are interested in money first, and so are we. Isn't it better for the US and China if China quiets the Norks down? Isn't the Norks sabre rattling just inviting a Western backed military build up in an area where they want to expand their influence? What does China gain by tolerating their noisy, neighbors? For me the Norks must be like that neighbor that keeps having the cops called over, or that sibling who keeps getting jailed that needs to be bailed out. I have a feeling there is a cultural component to all this that we're missing. For some reason the Chinese would rather have the Norks in the neighborhood than the Americans which I get, but as I mentioned, the Norks making noise just gives us more reason to up our military presence... So..... https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/04/economist-explains-2
The US has a strong presence in Sourh Korea (both military and other). North Korea keeps a border between the US and China. China does not want the US that close.
Well as Frebis mentioned and the article you link points out, North Korea is a buffer from expanding American influence in Asia. Despite leaving the TPP and media noise around it, American presence in the Asiatic sphere is more apparent now than it ever was and it keeps growing. Plus, as with the article you linked mentions and I posted previously, the refugee crisis for China would be enormous. Combine that with the fact that China already has a few million ethnic Koreans in Manchuria, the last thing they want is a flood of 20 million+ more storming across the border creating a diplomatic crisis in the northern part of their country. Thats why they are stationing troops on their border. Its not to keep us out, its to keep the North Koreans in. Eventually the clock will run out and China will have to cave on it. They will only accept so many embarrassments from Kim and if they start posing a serious threat of launching a nuke at the US Pacific Coast, the remaining love will be lost very quickly. Along with a nuclear Japan, they really dont want a major American-led war on their border. That doesnt mean it wont happen, but for now its up in the air.
I can't imagine anyone has forgotten the lessons WW2 taught us that quickly and giving Japan nukes (if they would even accept them) would be the 2017 version of the Cuban missile crisis, with no way to back down and very shaky leaders. Japan is still something of a pariah for the Fukushima meltdown, so I can't imagine giving them nuclear weapons is a popular notion. I don't think that's a wise strategy on our or Japan's part. Japan is largely comfortable being the target of the NK's aggression and lingering hostility from all three players. They have larger demographic and economic issues to tackle and as an island nation, much of their security is naturally present. Again, the threat is NK striking Japan, provoking a response from us and Japan that they can entice the Chinese to intervene against (or more likely, preserve the regime in exchange for assets once the dust settles). The Koreans HATE the Japanese and even SK would cringe at having to join an alliance against NK. NK is a physical buffer, sure. I think their role is court jester: they KNOW exactly how they are viewed and how realistic their threats are. They provide a lot of contextual value to the Chinese: the government can point to them and say "look, it can always be worse", and their feet-stomping certainly distracts from more...realistic threats from the region. Instead of us focusing on how to apply pressure on China, we are pondering about swatting a fly. For the Chinese, the fly is immensely valuable, until it stings something.
It would be ballsy to arm Japan only for the fact the the Koreas and China still have long standing hatred for them from WW2. I don't think South Korea would be totally against it since it would serve their intrest against the North and China. It would at least not effect us economically in the short term as Trump wildly thrashing around trade deals and tarriffs does.
Thats true, but that sting could involve 9-13 million casualties. Thats quite a sting to gamble with. Japan has been dancing around nuclear armament for decades, so much so that if they were to take their technology and militarize it, they could develop a nuke arsenal very quickly and far more effectively than NK. So far, all China has done with North Korea is finger wag, (finally) agree to enforce UN sanctions, and halt coal trade with them. Obviously, thats not enough to make a difference. The conditions of the Cuban Missile Crisis are very different and the relationship between China and US vs US and USSR is much closer and warmer than is typically perceived. China will never engage in a war with the US unless their a significant resource shortage or something extreme. The economies are so intertwined that any war would be economically devastating to both and cause a global meltdown. Arming Japan with nukes is a last resort option before an actual war with North Korea, its risky but it might be worth avoiding a conventional ground war. Another solution is returning the tactical nuke batteries to South Korea that were removed in the 90s. Again, risky, but if it avoids a war it might be worth taking.