North Korea: 2012-2016

[JMA]

Ok granted, should have said "publicly". I've no doubt that the north needs and relies upon responses to provocation. Like so many other governments, they need somebody to hate.

In some ways the most provocative and disconcerting response we could give to provocation would be to completely ignore it, but that's difficult to do... and would leave the temptation to escalate the provocation until response was gained.

I suspect that many regional players would be happy enough to see the status quo of a divided and eternally conflicted Korea continue, but of course the rather eccentric nature of the north makes that status quo a bit shaky.

Exactly the reason why this lunatic should never have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This applies to Iran as well.

[Dayuhan]

Exactly the reason why this lunatic should never have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This applies to Iran as well.

Here we go again with the "allowed to". Who is supposed to declare what other countries are or are not "allowed" to do? Who exactly was supposed to stop them, and how?

[JMA]

Here we go again with the "allowed to". Who is supposed to declare what other countries are or are not "allowed" to do? Who exactly was supposed to stop them, and how?

It happens all the time. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two recent examples.

PS: Spend a little time reading the WikiLeaks nuclear related cables and see what the world was facing in this regard.

[Dayuhan]

It happens all the time. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two recent examples.

Two excellent examples of why invading countries and trying to replace governments we dislike is generally not a good idea. Invading North Korea or Iran would be a fairly complicated and extraordinarily expensive affair with substantial risks... and whom do you propose to do the invading (and the paying)? Not exactly something you're going to build an international coalition around... do you expect the US to do it unilaterally? If not the US, then who?

From an American perspective... I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else. We can't afford the wars we've got, let alone another one. If you're willing to cover the costs, we'll reconsider as soon as your check clears. A trillion or so to start would do.

[JMA]

Two excellent examples of why invading countries and trying to replace governments we dislike is generally not a good idea. Invading North Korea or Iran would be a fairly complicated and extraordinarily expensive affair with substantial risks... and whom do you propose to do the invading (and the paying)? Not exactly something you're going to build an international coalition around... do you expect the US to do it unilaterally? If not the US, then who?

From an American perspective... I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else. We can't afford the wars we've got, let alone another one. If you're willing to cover the costs, we'll reconsider as soon as your check clears. A trillion or so to start would do.

You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent. So why not from now on just speak for yourself?

[Uboat509]

You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent.

Unless the president could convince the majority of Americans that Iran or NK poses an immediate direct threat to the US and that no other means to counter that threat exists then it isn't going to happen. Look at the fighting over a relatively small increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan. Recent US precedent concerns the invasion of a country that housed the terrorist organization that had just attacked us and the invasion of a country that we had already beaten once militarily and that many believed was aquiring WMD in order to attack us or to provide to someone else so that they could attack us. Both invasions also happened before the economic crash. Things have changed since those invasions and I don't see a shred of evidence anywhere to suggest that the American people, much less the politicians in DC have the stomache for another invasion or occupation. Nor do I believe that we could afford it in any case.

[Dayuhan]

You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent. So why not from now on just speak for yourself?

I said an American perspective, not the American perspective. Since I am American, my perspective is an American one... one of many.

Iraq and Afghanistan provide excellent examples of the risks and enormous expense of occupying nations and trying to install governments. Hasn't work out well, and Iran or North Korea would likely have been far worse.

The comment about the check was of course tongue in cheek, but there's a point as well. When people in other countries say "we shouldn't allow..." they generally mean "the American taxpayer shouldn't allow...". The American taxpayer has, I suspect, had just about enough of that.

[AdamG]

Reading music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBTIoL5vaOM

Behold, the power of Open Source ... from

http://www.informationdissemination....-underway.html

So nine subs got under way over the weekend, 2 of those on official deployment. Actually the number is 10 over the period of the last week, because USS Jacksonville (SSN 699) just returned from deployment last week and USS Charlotte (SSN 766) deployed the next day. Worth remembering, ~60% of the submarines in US Navy inventory are in the Pacific.

I'm sure this activity is completely unrelated to recent events on the Korean Peninsula. Or not.