The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Got some decent untapped mineral resources but it's hugely undeveloped
Put it like this; China already had plenty of North Koreas (poor, hilly, backward, undeveloped infrastructure, some natural resources, uneducated population) to worry about within its own borders to want another one.
Also it wouldn't be a nice clean occupation with the PRC troops welcomed as liberators. North Koreans and South Koreans both share an intense dislike of occupation of Korea by outside forces. Especially Japanese and, you guessed it, Chinese forces.
Also it wouldn't be a nice clean occupation with the PRC troops welcomed as liberators. North Koreans and South Koreans both share an intense dislike of occupation of Korea by outside forces. Especially Japanese and, you guessed it, Chinese forces.
If this ends up as some sort of multilateral invasion it might be best to have the South Korean troops doing the people-facing parts of the occupation (patrols etc) because North Koreans are not going to react well to either American or Chinese troops. Less language difficulty too.
I kind of roll my eyes at the idea of a major Western country doing a blatant "resource" grab with an overt military strike.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
Because the PRC of the 1950s under Mao (Mao, for Christ's sake!) is not the PRC of 2017?
That's true, but assuming they won't go to war because it is stupid is still not very wise.
China has been pushing in the region for the last few years, and Trump isn't exactly well known for his ability to cool down a situation.
So there are absolutely scenario's where I think we could wind up in a situation where Xi Jinping and Trump have gotten into a pissing match so far that neither one is willing to back down.
History tells us that Xi Jinping will back down, and de-escalate. He's the "sane man" between those two parties.
And that match being over North Korea in some way is very plausible. Either how to deal with them, or how to deal with them post US military intervention. And if not NK, something else could just as easily do it, or a combination of things.
This is true, however, things aren't as partisan between the two sides as they used to be. NK's alliance with China has been deteriorating for years, the question is - how far will it go before China just (unofficially) packs it in or only is there to keep up appearances (because they don't want a reason for NK to start threatening them like they do with America).
Um, so we're just casually going to ignore all of China's provocations in recent years? Like in the South China Sea? Or in Bhutan, like this summer? Or that similar statements might have been made about Russia not so long ago, and it desire to avoid conflict with NATO and the EU?
Y'all are completely off your rockers. I wouldn't necessarily argue that China would definitely intervene, but your conclusions that China absolutely wouldn't are flimsy as all hell, cherry-picking specific certain tactical and strategic elements while ignoring others, and furthermore entirely ignoring the political demands on the PRC, both domestic and foreign. As Von Clausewitz noted, war is simply the continuation of political intercourse via other means. The PRC has often demonstrated an interest in nontraditional, "gray zone" conflict to test their opponents' resolve and to bolster internal nationalist sentiment and popular opinion.
Also, Xi Jinping wouldn't be the one making the decision. Double also, there is significant irony in Americans simultaneously clamouring that Trump is ruining the US's global reputation by refusing to support NATO and commit to the defense of its allies while suggesting that China has no interests, none at all, in protecting North Korea from a full-on US invasion, especially as it works to improve ties with South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and Central and South American nations (read: Third World nations with strong anti-colonialist/anti-American-imperialist histories).
I kind of roll my eyes at the idea of a major Western country doing a blatant "resource" grab with an overt military strike.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
Doing so successfully? I doubt it. Being bandied about by Trump as a reason why this totally necessary action won't be as big a money sink while stirring up some frothing bloodrage at a rally? Oh, that I could see him doing.
Hell, based on his statements to date, one could argue he's most of the way there based on his views on Iraq.
"We totes should have stolen their shit" is right in his wheelhouse.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I kind of roll my eyes at the idea of a major Western country doing a blatant "resource" grab with an overt military strike.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
Sure, but we haven't had a president who has blatantly called for war profiteering in quite some time.
It was never about recouping war costs, it was always about making money on the taxpayers dime.
The costs of protection and such would mostly (or all) go to the US taxpayers, and the profits would mostly go to private companies... of which I'm sure many would (by total coincidence of course) happen to have some sort of intermingled relationship with Trump and/or his companies.
And setting up the mining infrastructure and such would do NK little to no good... they would see a fraction, if any, of the revenue from such an endeavor.
China has already signaled that they won't help NK if they start shit. Which makes flying around their borders hoping to provoke an incident that can be used as a Causi Belli somewhat rational if you want to launch a premptive strike.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I kind of roll my eyes at the idea of a major Western country doing a blatant "resource" grab with an overt military strike.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
I mean, prior to the war their oil industry was nationalized, now there's plenty of private international oil firm's working there.
Just because the money wasn't dumped directly into the US Treasury doesn't mean that western nations aren't grabbing resources.
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
He's an asshole. You guys don't have assholes in North Korea?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
I feel deeply vindicated.
Also, pleasantly surprised that the North Koreans actually identified that issue (at all), and are taking measures to rectify it. It hints at a level of meta-rationality, that the North Koreans do recognize the game that they're playing with the US and are seeking to establish exactly what the rules of it are. (Just a hint though.)
I kind of roll my eyes at the idea of a major Western country doing a blatant "resource" grab with an overt military strike.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
I mean, prior to the war their oil industry was nationalized, now there's plenty of private international oil firm's working there.
Just because the money wasn't dumped directly into the US Treasury doesn't mean that western nations aren't grabbing resources.
The thing that makes this "take their oil" mentality the worst is that the taxpayer pays for the war, but it's corporations, probably campaign contributors that profit from the spoils. So offsetting the cost of the war isn't even a glimmer of a factor. Return on investment only counts if the return is going back to the investor and/or can back out of the deal. Taxpayers don't get to back out and they won't see a dime of the returns.
I kind of roll my eyes at the idea of a major Western country doing a blatant "resource" grab with an overt military strike.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
I mean, prior to the war their oil industry was nationalized, now there's plenty of private international oil firm's working there.
Just because the money wasn't dumped directly into the US Treasury doesn't mean that western nations aren't grabbing resources.
Yes, but that's a bit like selling your house and buying a cardboard box and declaring a profit.
A war with North Korea would most likely be a war of conquest in a sense, because I would expect a unified peninsula as a goal of the end of it. Which, if we agreed to remove our troop presence I could see China being okay with after the last few decades of North Korea being North Korea.
Of course, that would require a lot of political deftness, so it would be more likely that it all goes to shit.
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
I feel deeply vindicated.
Also, pleasantly surprised that the North Koreans actually identified that issue (at all), and are taking measures to rectify it. It hints at a level of meta-rationality, that the North Koreans do recognize the game that they're playing with the US and are seeking to establish exactly what the rules of it are. (Just a hint though.)
yes, it actually makes me a bit relieved to see NK asking "so is this guy just a massive dickbag or ...."
An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilizations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop.
That's partially snark, partially a moment of 'holy shit, um, I really hope they manage to get that sorted out soon.'
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The not-actually-ha-ha-funny thing is, it's actually a very familiar problem for them.
They're just used to it being their manbaby Great Leader, and their solution so far seems to be "let him do whatever the hell he wants."
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
He's an asshole. You guys don't have assholes in North Korea?
I wish it was that simple.
There's lots of assholes that can decide rationally. Mitch McConnel is an asshole. So is Vlad Putin. While I find both people self serving and horrible, but I would never call them irrational.
Trump is irrational, egotistical, short tempered, racist, thin skinned, and deliberately ignorant. On top of being an asshole.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+25
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Got some decent untapped mineral resources but it's hugely undeveloped
Put it like this; China already had plenty of North Koreas (poor, hilly, backward, undeveloped infrastructure, some natural resources, uneducated population) to worry about within its own borders to want another one.
That's weak incentive. The US sand Canada have plenty of mineral resources and both are largely more interested in exporting them than importing them.
Pretty interesting article, the note about them coming with his tweets memorized makes me wonder if their understanding of them is entirely verbatim, and how much access they have to his broader catalogue.
They note confusion about his flip flopping between total withdrawl of US forces from SK, to basing nukes there. This would seem erratic for anyone else, but it's almost hilarious to think Donald Trump is attempting to outline any coherrent strategy in those statements. That he speaks almost exclusively to win the moment seems like it should be obvious.
So have they somehow missed that, due to lack of exposure to, perhaps, non-North Korea focused statements? Or do they see it, but simply can't believe we would have missed it when we elected him, and therefore defer to our resident cultural expertise, assume they are mistaken, and that there must be a deeper meaning to it all.
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
He's an asshole. You guys don't have assholes in North Korea?
I wish it was that simple.
There's lots of assholes that can decide rationally. Mitch McConnel is an asshole. So is Vlad Putin. While I find both people self serving and horrible, but I would never call them irrational.
Trump is irrational, egotistical, short tempered, racist, thin skinned, and deliberately ignorant. On top of being an asshole.
Trump isn't irrational. He's all those others things, but his actions make sense in light of those other descriptions.
BERN, Switzerland — North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime.
The outreach began before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders but will probably become only more urgent as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that, many analysts worry, sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.
“Their number one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” said one person with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections.
There is no suggestion that the North Koreans are interested in negotiations about their nuclear program — they instead seem to want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state — and the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in talking right now.
At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
He's an asshole. You guys don't have assholes in North Korea?
I wish it was that simple.
There's lots of assholes that can decide rationally. Mitch McConnel is an asshole. So is Vlad Putin. While I find both people self serving and horrible, but I would never call them irrational.
Trump is irrational, egotistical, short tempered, racist, thin skinned, and deliberately ignorant. On top of being an asshole.
Trump isn't irrational. He's all those others things, but his actions make sense in light of those other descriptions.
Irrational or illogical is irrelevant to me, because the other things are going to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Someone can have a thought-process that is logically sound, but still irrational.
What is irrational about his actions?
At the end of the day the problem is not that Trump is irrational, it's that he views the world in terms of dominance, zero-sum games and the kind of strategies that work in Manhattan real estate. And that he's childish and thin-skinned and a moron.
Someone can have a thought-process that is logically sound, but still irrational.
What is irrational about his actions?
At the end of the day the problem is not that Trump is irrational, it's that he views the world in terms of dominance, zero-sum games and the kind of strategies that work in Manhattan real estate. And that he's childish and thin-skinned and a moron.
... that would make him an irrational actor. In pretty much any domain, the definition of rationality includes the actor being able to reason about the world and understanding its nature. In game theory and foreign policy, in particular, actors need to understand the actual game that they are playing to be considered rational. If someone views the world in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with how the world actually is, then they're not rational actors.
Your post is literally, "What makes you think he's irrational? It's not that Trump's irrational, it's that he's irrational. And that he's irrational, irrational, and irrational."
The idea of attacking North Korea to loot it, while horrible, is not necessarily mistaken if all you care about it is profit.
Because, yes, the attack would cost more than can be profited, but it is not necessarily you that is paying.
US government, and American tax payers pay the cost, private corporations (that Trump may or may not have investment in) will reap the profits.
Someone can have a thought-process that is logically sound, but still irrational.
What is irrational about his actions?
At the end of the day the problem is not that Trump is irrational, it's that he views the world in terms of dominance, zero-sum games and the kind of strategies that work in Manhattan real estate. And that he's childish and thin-skinned and a moron.
... that would make him an irrational actor. In pretty much any domain, the definition of rationality includes the actor being able to reason about the world and understanding its nature. In game theory and foreign policy, in particular, actors need to understand the actual game that they are playing to be considered rational. If someone views the world in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with how the world actually is, then they're not rational actors.
Your post is literally, "What makes you think he's irrational? It's not that Trump's irrational, it's that he's irrational. And that he's irrational, irrational, and irrational."
No, it doesn't and no that's not what I said. Again, what makes him irrational? Y'all confusing a guy obsessed with bluffing, bluster and dominance for irrationality.
Your interpretation of the bolded part isn't even right. The guy learned his deal-making tactics in an environment where these tactics are the norm. And now he's using them in intentional politics. That's not irrational. These tactics still make sense in the new context. They are just, you know, terrifying and potentially dangerous. But "using tactics you don't think are the right ones" is not a definition of irrationality.
Someone can have a thought-process that is logically sound, but still irrational.
What is irrational about his actions?
At the end of the day the problem is not that Trump is irrational, it's that he views the world in terms of dominance, zero-sum games and the kind of strategies that work in Manhattan real estate. And that he's childish and thin-skinned and a moron.
... that would make him an irrational actor. In pretty much any domain, the definition of rationality includes the actor being able to reason about the world and understanding its nature. In game theory and foreign policy, in particular, actors need to understand the actual game that they are playing to be considered rational. If someone views the world in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with how the world actually is, then they're not rational actors.
Your post is literally, "What makes you think he's irrational? It's not that Trump's irrational, it's that he's irrational. And that he's irrational, irrational, and irrational."
No, it doesn't and no that's not what I said. Again, what makes him irrational? Y'all confusing a guy obsessed with bluffing, bluster and dominance for irrationality.
Your interpretation of the bolded part isn't even right. The guy learned his deal-making tactics in an environment where these tactics are the norm. And now he's using them in intentional politics. That's not irrational. These tactics still make sense in the new context. They are just, you know, terrifying and potentially dangerous. But "using tactics you don't think are the right ones" is not a definition of irrationality.
The anger and impulsiveness are strong hints at irrationality, or at the very least a rather stunted and useless rational framework. Really, in other venues he's had really strong hints at irrationality, like where his personal valuation of his wealth would depend upon his mood. If Trump is a rational actor there needs to be a consistency to his decision making that isn't clearly there. It can't depend on things like if he had a bad bucket of KFC for lunch.
The extreme narcissism that he displays is very irrational from a psychological standpoint, even if there is a bit of predictability that can derived from it in foreign policy (insult him and he'll overreact, flatter him and he'll be pleased for the moment). But the whole pattern of Trump going with whoever flatters him the most recently and who talked to him last is not rational.
Someone can have a thought-process that is logically sound, but still irrational.
What is irrational about his actions?
At the end of the day the problem is not that Trump is irrational, it's that he views the world in terms of dominance, zero-sum games and the kind of strategies that work in Manhattan real estate. And that he's childish and thin-skinned and a moron.
... that would make him an irrational actor. In pretty much any domain, the definition of rationality includes the actor being able to reason about the world and understanding its nature. In game theory and foreign policy, in particular, actors need to understand the actual game that they are playing to be considered rational. If someone views the world in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with how the world actually is, then they're not rational actors.
Your post is literally, "What makes you think he's irrational? It's not that Trump's irrational, it's that he's irrational. And that he's irrational, irrational, and irrational."
No, it doesn't and no that's not what I said. Again, what makes him irrational? Y'all confusing a guy obsessed with bluffing, bluster and dominance for irrationality.
Your interpretation of the bolded part isn't even right. The guy learned his deal-making tactics in an environment where these tactics are the norm. And now he's using them in intentional politics. That's not irrational. These tactics still make sense in the new context. They are just, you know, terrifying and potentially dangerous. But "using tactics you don't think are the right ones" is not a definition of irrationality.
That Trump thinks those tactics will wrk in these new contexts are what make him irrational.
Posts
Put it like this; China already had plenty of North Koreas (poor, hilly, backward, undeveloped infrastructure, some natural resources, uneducated population) to worry about within its own borders to want another one.
If this ends up as some sort of multilateral invasion it might be best to have the South Korean troops doing the people-facing parts of the occupation (patrols etc) because North Koreans are not going to react well to either American or Chinese troops. Less language difficulty too.
Are you accounting for the environmental damage (just figure strip mining, open dumping of waste, etc.)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Ah yes, the call of colonialism.
" If we aren't doing the worst thing we can think of that means we're doing pretty well".
Trump is causing me to have low standards.
"Blood for oil" was a meaningless refrain during the second Iraq war. America did not magically start stripping the area of its mineral/gas wealth. We did not pay for the $2 trillion dollar war balanced by any potential spoils from the tactical victory.
Plus, potential financial gain has to be balanced by the ability to secure the safety and manufacturing faculties placed there.
Um, so we're just casually going to ignore all of China's provocations in recent years? Like in the South China Sea? Or in Bhutan, like this summer? Or that similar statements might have been made about Russia not so long ago, and it desire to avoid conflict with NATO and the EU?
Y'all are completely off your rockers. I wouldn't necessarily argue that China would definitely intervene, but your conclusions that China absolutely wouldn't are flimsy as all hell, cherry-picking specific certain tactical and strategic elements while ignoring others, and furthermore entirely ignoring the political demands on the PRC, both domestic and foreign. As Von Clausewitz noted, war is simply the continuation of political intercourse via other means. The PRC has often demonstrated an interest in nontraditional, "gray zone" conflict to test their opponents' resolve and to bolster internal nationalist sentiment and popular opinion.
Also, Xi Jinping wouldn't be the one making the decision. Double also, there is significant irony in Americans simultaneously clamouring that Trump is ruining the US's global reputation by refusing to support NATO and commit to the defense of its allies while suggesting that China has no interests, none at all, in protecting North Korea from a full-on US invasion, especially as it works to improve ties with South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and Central and South American nations (read: Third World nations with strong anti-colonialist/anti-American-imperialist histories).
Doing so successfully? I doubt it. Being bandied about by Trump as a reason why this totally necessary action won't be as big a money sink while stirring up some frothing bloodrage at a rally? Oh, that I could see him doing.
Hell, based on his statements to date, one could argue he's most of the way there based on his views on Iraq.
"We totes should have stolen their shit" is right in his wheelhouse.
Sure, but we haven't had a president who has blatantly called for war profiteering in quite some time.
It was never about recouping war costs, it was always about making money on the taxpayers dime.
The costs of protection and such would mostly (or all) go to the US taxpayers, and the profits would mostly go to private companies... of which I'm sure many would (by total coincidence of course) happen to have some sort of intermingled relationship with Trump and/or his companies.
And setting up the mining infrastructure and such would do NK little to no good... they would see a fraction, if any, of the revenue from such an endeavor.
I mean, prior to the war their oil industry was nationalized, now there's plenty of private international oil firm's working there.
Just because the money wasn't dumped directly into the US Treasury doesn't mean that western nations aren't grabbing resources.
The Madman theory of international relations at work.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
He's an asshole. You guys don't have assholes in North Korea?
I feel deeply vindicated.
Also, pleasantly surprised that the North Koreans actually identified that issue (at all), and are taking measures to rectify it. It hints at a level of meta-rationality, that the North Koreans do recognize the game that they're playing with the US and are seeking to establish exactly what the rules of it are. (Just a hint though.)
The thing that makes this "take their oil" mentality the worst is that the taxpayer pays for the war, but it's corporations, probably campaign contributors that profit from the spoils. So offsetting the cost of the war isn't even a glimmer of a factor. Return on investment only counts if the return is going back to the investor and/or can back out of the deal. Taxpayers don't get to back out and they won't see a dime of the returns.
Yes, but that's a bit like selling your house and buying a cardboard box and declaring a profit.
Of course, that would require a lot of political deftness, so it would be more likely that it all goes to shit.
yes, it actually makes me a bit relieved to see NK asking "so is this guy just a massive dickbag or ...."
He's so fucking embarrassing.
That's partially snark, partially a moment of 'holy shit, um, I really hope they manage to get that sorted out soon.'
They're just used to it being their manbaby Great Leader, and their solution so far seems to be "let him do whatever the hell he wants."
I wish it was that simple.
There's lots of assholes that can decide rationally. Mitch McConnel is an asshole. So is Vlad Putin. While I find both people self serving and horrible, but I would never call them irrational.
Trump is irrational, egotistical, short tempered, racist, thin skinned, and deliberately ignorant. On top of being an asshole.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
That's weak incentive. The US sand Canada have plenty of mineral resources and both are largely more interested in exporting them than importing them.
They note confusion about his flip flopping between total withdrawl of US forces from SK, to basing nukes there. This would seem erratic for anyone else, but it's almost hilarious to think Donald Trump is attempting to outline any coherrent strategy in those statements. That he speaks almost exclusively to win the moment seems like it should be obvious.
So have they somehow missed that, due to lack of exposure to, perhaps, non-North Korea focused statements? Or do they see it, but simply can't believe we would have missed it when we elected him, and therefore defer to our resident cultural expertise, assume they are mistaken, and that there must be a deeper meaning to it all.
Trump isn't irrational. He's all those others things, but his actions make sense in light of those other descriptions.
Someone can have a thought-process that is logically sound, but still irrational.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Irrational or illogical is irrelevant to me, because the other things are going to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
What is irrational about his actions?
At the end of the day the problem is not that Trump is irrational, it's that he views the world in terms of dominance, zero-sum games and the kind of strategies that work in Manhattan real estate. And that he's childish and thin-skinned and a moron.
America's failed to do this during competent administrations, I'm skeptical this'll be possible with one governed by Donald Trump.
... that would make him an irrational actor. In pretty much any domain, the definition of rationality includes the actor being able to reason about the world and understanding its nature. In game theory and foreign policy, in particular, actors need to understand the actual game that they are playing to be considered rational. If someone views the world in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with how the world actually is, then they're not rational actors.
Your post is literally, "What makes you think he's irrational? It's not that Trump's irrational, it's that he's irrational. And that he's irrational, irrational, and irrational."
Because, yes, the attack would cost more than can be profited, but it is not necessarily you that is paying.
US government, and American tax payers pay the cost, private corporations (that Trump may or may not have investment in) will reap the profits.
No, it doesn't and no that's not what I said. Again, what makes him irrational? Y'all confusing a guy obsessed with bluffing, bluster and dominance for irrationality.
Your interpretation of the bolded part isn't even right. The guy learned his deal-making tactics in an environment where these tactics are the norm. And now he's using them in intentional politics. That's not irrational. These tactics still make sense in the new context. They are just, you know, terrifying and potentially dangerous. But "using tactics you don't think are the right ones" is not a definition of irrationality.
The anger and impulsiveness are strong hints at irrationality, or at the very least a rather stunted and useless rational framework. Really, in other venues he's had really strong hints at irrationality, like where his personal valuation of his wealth would depend upon his mood. If Trump is a rational actor there needs to be a consistency to his decision making that isn't clearly there. It can't depend on things like if he had a bad bucket of KFC for lunch.
The extreme narcissism that he displays is very irrational from a psychological standpoint, even if there is a bit of predictability that can derived from it in foreign policy (insult him and he'll overreact, flatter him and he'll be pleased for the moment). But the whole pattern of Trump going with whoever flatters him the most recently and who talked to him last is not rational.
That Trump thinks those tactics will wrk in these new contexts are what make him irrational.
How did that work out for Iraq again?