South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[carl]

No, the Cold War era does not define us, nor does the 20 years of post-Cold War. One has to look at the whole, and of the whole, these two recent eras are far more anomalous than definitive of the American character and nation.

You can't measure a 10' pond with a 6" stick. Same is true for history. We do seem to be forgetting who we are though and that is sad. A lot of short sticks in DC. Read that anyway you want.

So the cold war, which lasted a lot of years, does not define us. And the post cold war, which lasted 20 years does not define us. So the upshot is that our actions since WWII do not define us. That sounds like a sales pitch to me. "Trust us. After all, look at Lincoln."

If I was overseas, I would view much of American history with great admiration, but make my decisions based upon American actions since WWII and place more emphasis on the more recent events. It would then be prudent to reach the same conclusion as JMA.

[Ken White]

If I was overseas, I would view much of American history with great admiration, but make my decisions based upon American actions since WWII and place more emphasis on the more recent events. It would then be prudent to reach the same conclusion as JMA.

Prudent for sure, wrong quite probably. Misjudgement of the US and what it can or will do has led to most of our wars...

I doubt that will change in the near future.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

If the couple across the street from your family, who have been brawling for years, got into a gunfight one night, how many of your kids would you send over to break it up?

As to your Taiwan scenario? There are many powerful lobbies that have dangerously shaped US foreign policy throughout the post WWII era. Saudi, Cuban, Jewish and Taiwanese are four. All 100% dedicated to their own interests with no regard to US interests. The US does not have a lobby pushing for our interests, though plenty that sell either liberal or conservative spins as they play to those respective parties/positions.

As an American? If we let this just sit and fester as is until someday your scenario actually pops up, we will most likely react rather than respond. As I stated earlier this is a no win situation for the US and a no lose situation for China. It is also played on China's doorstep. I cannot imagine a reason to play such a game. Remember the Joe Pesci character in "Goodfellas"? Give a litte guy a big gun and back him up with a powerful organization and he is apt to cause all kinds of trouble he would never have caused on his own. We need to be careful not to create a "Joe Pesci" leader in Taiwan (or elsewhere). Support has limits. We have defined our limits with Taiwan. We would be wise to ensure they appreciate we are serious about those limits. Our actions, however, could reasonably lead them to believe we are not serious. That is dangerous.

It's not in China's interest to destroy Taiwan, even if this went violent it would likely be over before we could do anything anyway, and life would be back to normal within months. Certainly life in the US and US interests would be little affected. Not true if we lost a couple carriers and a couple dozen top end fighters destroyed in the process. Not every fight is our fight. I stand by that.

[carl]

Councilor, answer the question as posed please.

[Bob's World]

Councilor, answer the question as posed please.

Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, not threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

Answer: "You are on your own."

Though trust me, If China makes that decision, there will be no time for Taiwan to vote or for the US to assess. They won't send a note announcing their intent to invade. The entire operation could likely be over within 72 hours; and within 24 hours it would require a counter-invasion of US forces sufficient to push China out. How, exactly, do you propose we do that? Even if you make the arguement it is in our intrest (and I have not heard that argument from you or JMA in this thread)?

At some point one has to rely more upon cold assessments of what their interests are and what their actual (or affordable) capabilities are. For the US this is, IMO, neither in our interests or affordable.

Reasonable minds can differ, but this is my opinion. I am comfortable with others believing otherwise, but I admit, I put little stock on playground taunt rationale such as offered by JMA.

[carl]

Answer: "You are on your own."

Thank you Councilor. Now we know where you stand. A free state, that has been a staunch ally in the past would be swallowed up by a totalitarian police state with no real objection from you.

I would hope the USians would not follow the path you advocate in the unlikely event the situation I postulated came to be. As JMA says, "The world is not blind." and would notice. Suddenly the Wikipedia entry on "Sudetenland" would have a lot of hits and everybody would be wondering who was next. Things would not go well for us in the years following.

Now I have a comment and a question about this

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute.

The USN presently controls the seas, though we do better with assistance, through which both Taiwan and Red China conduct their ocean trade. But Red China is building up, at quite a remarkable rate, naval power that seems designed to at least chase the USN away from the South China Sea. If that happened wouldn't the leverage of which you speak disappear? I think if we wanted to be able to maintain that leverage we have to make sure that the PLAN can't push us around.

[Ken White]

Even if you make the arguement it is in our intrest (and I have not heard that argument from you or JMA in this thread)?

You also noticed that...

...For the US this is, IMO, neither in our interests or affordable.

I agree. My sensing is that an adequate majority of Americans probably do the same.

It is probably noteworthy that the whole Taiwan support issue as seen in the US has little or nothing to do with a Pacific strategy or international relations. It revolves around US domestic politics and has done so since 1949, relying on how much the party out of 'power' wants to hassle the party in 'power.' Fortunately, when castration time arrives, that foolishness tends to fall by the wayside to at least an extent.

... I am comfortable with others believing otherwise...

I guess one could say I relished that as opposed to merely being comfortable with it.

Of course, my Wife points out that my penchant for later saying "I told you so..." is not endearing, mature or beneficial. She can be unduly grumpy at times...

[carl]

It is probably noteworthy that the whole Taiwan support issue as seen in the US has little or nothing to do with a Pacific strategy or international relations.

I think you are wrong. It has everything to do with Pacific strategy and international relations. On the international relations front, the world would notice that we allowed a free state to be conquered by a totalitarian police state. They would have to make allowances, great big ones, since they could only prudently figure they would be next and try to cut the best deal they could.

As far as Pacific strategy goes, as far as that strategy means keeping the Red Chinese from messing with the world other than by commercial means, loss of Taiwan would put a gaping hole in the barrier of islands off mainland China. Very good for the PLAN, very bad for the USN.

[Ray]

Dayuvan

Notwithstanding your justifications, I go by what is written.

It is written

MANILA, Philippines—U.S. and Philippine military officials say nearly 7,000 American and Filipino troops have begun two weeks of major military exercises but they stress that China is not an imaginary target.

Now, if you claim that the Philippines Armed Forces are hopelessly daft, even though they are native born and understand their fears and worries, and you are the one who is right because you feel that all is well and hyped, then so be it!

[Ray]

here are many powerful lobbies that have dangerously shaped US foreign policy throughout the post WWII era. Saudi, Cuban, Jewish and Taiwanese are four. All 100% dedicated to their own interests with no regard to US interests.

I am a bit surprised. Do you mean that US has no policy of its own and it is driven by immigrants? Apart from the lobbies mentioned, is the Anglo Saxon and German lobbies defunct?

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

if so, why is the US wasting money, when it is no position to waste money?

US to build £8bn super base on Pacific island of Guam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-of-Guam.html

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute. How would you have felt if Great Britain had sent in a massive force to prevent the US from reconsolidating the nation during the civil war? Do think there would not have been a century of conflict following, as half a dozen weak nations came to be where the US exists today? Not our fight, and we have no legal obligation to make it our fight.

Valid point.

Why did UK intervene in WWII?

It was only an issue with Germany and a few European countries.

It was not in the interest of Germany to capture them. All the wanted is a wee bit of Lebensraum.

Support has limits.

Not as per the US and George Bush.

You are either with us or against us!

[Dayuhan]

Dayuvan

Notwithstanding your justifications, I go by what is written.

MANILA, Philippines—U.S. and Philippine military officials say nearly 7,000 American and Filipino troops have begun two weeks of major military exercises but they stress that China is not an imaginary target.

Now, if you claim that the Philippines Armed Forces are hopelessly daft, even though they are native born and understand their fears and worries, and you are the one who is right because you feel that all is well and hyped, then so be it!

If you actually read the article, and the other coverage on the exercise, you'll see that the line quoted above is just not a very good piece of writing. They're trying to say that China is not the hypothetical target of the exercise. All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Of course any military exercise anywhere is intended to send a message to any potential antagonist, but in this case the primary potential antagonists being messaged are the rebel groups and their actual or potential foreign supporters, with China in second place. The Philippine political and military leaders consider the domestic insurgencies to be a greater threat; you can consider that "daft" if you like, but they have reasons. If you keep track of the Philippine media and talk to people you see there's a lot of irritation at the fishing incursions and some concern with conflict over offshore energy reserves, but only a tiny fringe worries about invasion and there's very limited support for major upgrades to military spending. Vietnam spends 2.5% of GDP on defense; the Philippines spends 0.9%. If you want an indication of relative fear and relative priorities, there it is. Money speaks louder than words.

This paragraph from the article is also not correct:

In the past, the exercises were held in Philippine regions grappling with decades-long Muslim and communist insurgencies and threats from al-Qaida-linked militants. This year's main venue, the southwestern island province of Palawan, lies near South China Sea areas disputed by China, the Philippines and four other countries.

For the past few years the exercise has been in the Muslim areas, but they've had them off Palawan before, quite a few times. The scenario of a terrorist takeover of an offshore gas rig (the Malampaya platform is a potentially attractive terrorist target) has been used before.

Sloppy journalism overall.

I suspect that you're putting these events into the context of your perception of the China threat without paying enough attention to what else is going on locally.

I've also seen news clips saying that there are new discussions going on over a US sale of another cutter and 12 F-16s to the Philippines. That would be related to the recent incursion, but it's mostly show. The cutter sale is already agreed on, no big news there. I have doubts about the F16s: the Philippine Air Force, which has long been embarrassed over having no planes, really really wants them, but scuttlebutt has it that the US side thinks its a poor idea on "sustainability and affordability" grounds, and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment, not that my opinion means anything.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

I think the US probably won't "take on" Russia or China... though being risk-averse I doubt I'd take that to the bank, and I doubt the Chinese or Russians would take it to the bank either. Easy to be brave and bold when you're on the internet and actions have no consequences.

I also don't think the Russians or Chinese would "take on" the Americans. They'll use proxies, undermine allies, posture, rattle sabers, pull the cold war playbook out, but they'll stop short of direct conflict, because even if they're 99% sure they'll get away with it, the potential consequences of that 1% are too large to risk. For some strange and incomprehensible reason major powers bristling with nukes are disinclined to "take on" other major powers bristling with nukes. Can't imagine why.

Though trust me, If China makes that decision, there will be no time for Taiwan to vote or for the US to assess. They won't send a note announcing their intent to invade. The entire operation could likely be over within 72 hours

Are you sure of that? I have some doubts. For sure the Chinese could unleash a barrage of missiles with no notice at all, but an actual invasion? Wouldn't that require a very large concentration of land assets moving into ports in a heavily populated and highly visible environment? China's naval sealift assets are limited; my understanding (purely from reading) is that they'd have to bring in a large portion of their merchant fleet. If a whole bunch of merchant vessels pulled off their normal routes and started congregating at Navy bases, that wouldn't be noticed? You're looking at an amphibious operation on the scale of the Normandy landings, in the age of satellite surveillance, could you really keep that a secret until it jumped off? I can imagine the CIA sleeping at the wheel, but you'd think the Taiwanese would be looking.

Plus the Chinese coast and key ports are well within range of Taiwanese SSMs, so unless the Chinese were absolutely sure the Taiwanese wouldn't preempt, they'd have to suppress those before they started concentrating forces, no?

I'm willing to be corrected by those with greater knowledge of these things, but the contention that the Chinese could simply launch an invasion on that scale without the preparations being visible seems on the surface questionable.

I also question this:

As I stated earlier this is a no win situation for the US and a no lose situation for China.

I don't think that's the case. If the Chinese moved on Taiwan and things didn't go as planned the domestic political repercussions would be huge.

I doubt very much that an invasion of Taiwan is in the cards. If China was going to move on Taiwan they could simply use that massive ballistic missile force to inflict and sustain intolerable damage, shut down trade, and try to force capitulation that way.

Under the current Chinese political order I wouldn't expect a move on Taiwan at all. They like to rattle sabers over the issue and they like using it as a red cape to wave at the US and at their own people, but the move itself would entail much risk and a lot of rocking of a boat that's been quite stable and comfortable for the leadership.

I suspect the Chinese know that and thus, while they'll bluster and some there will press for confrontation, as a nation, fortunately, they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.

Agreed.

Overall, there seems to be a great deal of angst and panic over the possibility that China may achieve military parity with the US in their own coastal waters. That's not compatible with the idea that the US must be absolutely superior to everyone, everywhere, all the time, but is it really cause for panic? Even in the rather unlikely event of direct conflict between the US and China, why would the US fight the Chinese where the Chinese are strongest? The US is China's leading export destination; an embargo on Chinese goods would take close to $300 billion a year out of Chinese industries. The USN can set up in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, where the US is strong and China is weak, and cut the Chinese commercial lifeline to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Why would you fight them where they are strongest when you don't have to?

Carl, I'll try to respond later; I have things to do and these threads get too busy to keep up with...

[carl]

Carl, I'll try to respond later; I have things to do and these threads get too busy to keep up with...

Don't mind me. I'm just slumping down in my seat in the back of the class hoping not to be noticed.

[jmm99]

This thread seems to me (not a criticism, just saying) a good example showing the two international relations "schools" in action: Realism in international relations and Idealism in international relations.

Perhaps, the instincts for the two schools are basic to the human male: one sleeps with $luts; one marries madonnas. Of course, in the first case, neither party should expect a long-term relationship (generally, "Pretty Woman" is a fairy tale). And similarly, the "Realistic School" does not include long-term cooperation or alliance as a general rule in its playbook. Since the "Idealistic School" looks to long-term cooperation or alliance as a desired end, the end of an alliance will be looked at quite differently by the two parties if one is focused on "realism" and the other on "idealism".

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

JMA posted:

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

I accept international politics is far from predictable, but if anything the USA since 1945 has been quite an unpredictable 'policeman'. As a certain Mr Saddam Hussain discovered after invading Kuwait.

Long time since I studied pre-1939 (for non-US) or pre-1941 (for the USA) international affairs, but I'd wager Hitler decided the US would never take Germany on. Less sure whether Tokyo thought the USA would do much beyond shouting and having the Burma Road (to Nationalist China) considering by 1941 Japan had been at war in China since 1937.

Having listened to a discussion on BBC radio this week on China, it appears they have enough internal issues to face / avoid and whilst maritime skirmishing in the South China Sea causes concern does it really "ring alarm bells"? Not to overlook Taiwan, a potentially far bigger prize for China if peacefully reunited (larger than Hong Kong by a significant factor IIRC).

[JMA]

JMA posted:

I accept international politics is far from predictable, but if anything the USA since 1945 has been quite an unpredictable 'policeman'. As a certain Mr Saddam Hussain discovered after invading Kuwait.

With the US especially so. Caused by their radical policy shifts every 4/8 years where the incoming 'smart guys' clear the table and start again clean ignoring what passed before them. Only USians think their system is good (for sentimental reasons that is), while the world stares incredulously on.

Long time since I studied pre-1939 (for non-US) or pre-1941 (for the USA) international affairs, but I'd wager Hitler decided the US would never take Germany on. Less sure whether Tokyo thought the USA would do much beyond shouting and having the Burma Road (to Nationalist China) considering by 1941 Japan had been at war in China since 1937.

The US left Japan with no option but a military one when their oil supplies were severely curtailed. The US wanted that war with Japan as much as they needed Britain to be so damaged that her empire would collapse. So with Britain, Germany and Japan out of the way was open for the US.

Having listened to a discussion on BBC radio this week on China, it appears they have enough internal issues to face / avoid and whilst maritime skirmishing in the South China Sea causes concern does it really "ring alarm bells"? Not to overlook Taiwan, a potentially far bigger prize for China if peacefully reunited (larger than Hong Kong by a significant factor IIRC).

I must try to remember the number of times a nation's leadership tries to take the eyes of their people off internal problems by creating an external crisis which will distract the people and hopefully rally them around a national cause.

I am old enough to remember that the US approaches to China were less about ensuring world peace and more about access to the massive potential consumer market there.

When I say the US will not go to war with China it is because of two reasons. One, that the US does not have the conventional forces to beat China without extensive use of nuclear weapons and secondly that there would be an outcry from the 1,000s of US companies so deeply involved in China (mainly through imports) that stand to lose a great deal.

The situation is that of the boiling frog. The Chinese are the ones doing the incrementalism while the US being unable to deal with the gradual changes to their detriment.

[JMA]

Prudent for sure, wrong quite probably. Misjudgement of the US and what it can or will do has led to most of our wars...

I doubt that will change in the near future.

Well Ken when it comes to the US it is not possible make an intelligent judgement as what they are likely to do... as it is like trying to figure out what a schizophrenic will do. Better to throw the dice and decide that way.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

[Ken White]

...Better to throw the dice and decide that way.

That can be quite true, barring an existential threat.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

Wrong. You can do that and others will join you. Probably cost all of you in the long run...

Many others will be smarter. For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact...

[JMA]

For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact...

Korea ended in a stalemate. But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.

The Soviets were going to be faced in Europe with the war destruction taking place there and not in and to the US (with no immediate existential threat to itself). .

The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.

[Dayuhan]

Korea ended in a stalemate. But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.

Wouldn't that depend on where the Chinese army was being faced?

The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

So we know the US has limited will to engage in conflicts that represent no significant threat to the US and involve no significant US interests. Why would the Russians, Chinese, or anyone else assume that the reaction would be the same if core interests were involved?

9/11 brought a fairly vigorous response (chaotic, incoherent, and largely unproductive, but vigorous) and would suggest to most that while you can easily mess with Americans in peripheral areas where they have little reason to be concerned, an attack on the core is likely to generate an aggressive response. Ken has commented in the past that the US rarely gets serious about foreign affairs until there's a broad perception of immediate threat, and I suspect he's right.

Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it.

We won't know that until there's an existential threat on the table. As of now there isn't one. Death by a thousand cuts sounds rather miserable, but so far the US isn't being cut.

[Ken White]

Korea ended in a stalemate.

Yes, it did. Need not have but it did because the Politicians wanted it that way. Your'e familiar with that...

You might also look at the relative numbers of troops involved and relative degree of effort and expense to include reported casualties by the nominal combatants.

But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.

We'll never know about then but there was and is now no question that the numerical superiority would have to be countered by something. The nuclear option is certainly one but there are others.

It had and has been a long held tenet of US military (not foreign...) policy to avoid getting sucked into a land war in Asia -- that in spite of the fact that we helped the British with their mid-19th Century endeavors there, made several minor incursion during that century then went to Peking during the Boxer Rebellion kept a couple of Army and a Marine Regiment in China for many years. Then came Korea, Viet Nam -- all counter to that military policy and as a result of the US foreign policy of the moment; All dictated by US politicians who commit forces and then tie the hands of those forces. Hard to win wars when you're on a leash...

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

Both political decisions based on US domestic politics, as you know -- and I would expect you to be smarter than Osama Bin Laden who foolishly cited the same things and built an er, 'strategy' on that house of cards. That hasn't worked out as he and his crowd expected...

...the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Fiendishly cunning? You're reading too much Graham Greene.

Defeated? Heh. There was NEVER any question but that we would stay (when we should not have) and leave with yet another politically determined stalemate / defeat -- call it what you will. There was never going to be a win in any of our post WW II foolishness...

However, I suggest you need to rearrange your Goat entrails or tea leaves. The fact that we are still in Afghanistan at this late date, no matter we should not be, totally negates the premise of Lebanon and Mogadishu as defining -- and makes 'defeat' borderline arguable

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.

Heh. Speaking of fiendishly cunning -- fooled you, there is no standard US game plan.

That changes with the wind, as we change Coaches...

Many things are past -- however, the US penchant for not making a big effort or getting things done right unless there's an overarching need to do so has not changed. We, the people; the troops; will avoid doing the hard things unless pushed. Hedonistic I know but there you are. We tend to accept barely adequate most of the time, rising to good enough to get the job done only with the correct impetus and never reach excellence -- no need for it. We're lazy and way too introspective. The Saturday game is more important than anyplace from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. We'd really rather not be bothered. Unless...

Excessive bother of the wrong kind will not invoke a sleeping giant scenario -- you're as dated as Carl and those pundits and think tanks I warned him to eschew. That was then, this is now. No sleeping giant, no fire up the industrial base. Those days are indeed gone. What is not gone is the ability to simply remove the leash IF and when warranted. Not a lot of Troops on the ground required, very few in fact.

We don't do the war among the people thing very well, never have (too selfish and hedonistic...) so insurgencies and the like are to be avoided. OTOH, if one has an infrastructure of any kind and wishes to keep it reasonably intact; if one has population centers, one is well advised to not try to get too cute. We may not be sophisticated or do nuances well but when pushed we can break things far further away and more rapidly and completely than anyone. I do not see that changing significantly in the next 30-40 years.

It should be noted that the "if and when" determination is a US unilateral decision which may come at any time and is somewhat unpredictable as is all US foreign and military policy. All, that is, except for a low to zero tolerance for SIGNIFICANT threats (the degree of significance also being a unilateral US determination...). Your or anyone else's definition of what constitutes such a threat is essentially irrelevant.

It should also be recalled that sometimes the Frog turns over the pot, spilling smelly hot water all over everything and everybody and forcing them to deal with a really pissed off Frog. Same deal with the cutting. Scalpel wielder slips, inadvertently cuts too deep in a sensitive area and then gets cold cocked and the OR gets thoroughly trashed.