• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Norks' New Strategy?

M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
croakerfish said:
Japan and SK are already working overtime to improve their capabilities. Expecting them to just suddenly jump up to the major league if we suddenly cut back is libertarianism-level magical thinking.

Sure, North Korea hasn’t invaded across the freaking DMZ since we turned it into the most intensely fortified border in existence. I’m not sure that says anything about their desires or goals. Who else would they invade, China or Russia?
But hey you’re right, we keep shooting missiles into their airspace, sending commandos through secret tunnels to attack soldiers and cops, and kidnapping their citizens abroad so it makes sense that they feel threatened. Oh wait that was them.

List of border incidents involving North and South Korea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

To me, it seems like you are making some arguments and then treat your untested conclusions as rock-solid assumptions for further arguments. We can’t possibly know if the Kim regime is or isn’t rational. For all we KNOW China has a kill switch implanted in Kim Jong Un’s head to make sure he doesn’t go rogue, or maybe he is shorting stocks through a shell corporation.
One thing we do know is that the Mexican standoff has been mostly working since the 50’s.
Click to expand...
Care to answer my questions? Like, do you think I'd not having troops there would cause NK to decide to cross the heavily fortified DMZ you mentioned? And why does the ROK need to jump to the "major leagues" as you put it?

If my questions ask have good answers, then sure, claim my argument is silly, but until then, let's have a debate where you actually have to use logic instead of hand waiving.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy said:
Hi! Poly Sci major. Totally get that. Also get that that this bedrock is bullshit. Games theory is useful. Also emphasis on theory.

So much blood, sweat and tears have been spent throughout history on one side’s inability to rectify the fact that their enemy isn’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing (us included). And that’s fucking confusing…Stay predictable so I can kill you damnit! Lots of energy gets focused on things having to go to plan or to policy instead of adapting to the facts on the ground.

You’re also proving Heinlein right in your last sentence there. What is rational to one asshole may not be rational to another. And that’s almost always revealed after the fact, after a lot of folks have died.
Click to expand...
You're confusing rationality regarding grand strategic decisions like going to war or not with strategic or tactical decisions that are determined by things like the plans that you mentioned.

Can you name some modern wars that you think were started by irrational actors?
 
R

Random8145

Registered User
From a western European, and particularly German, perspective, perhaps Ukraine v Russia, as they thought all the claims about possible Putin aggression were nonsense as that would be "irrational."
 
sevenhelmet

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Mirage said:
Can you name some modern wars that you think were started by irrational actors?
Click to expand...

Hamas attacking Israel.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Houthi attacks on shipping.

None of these appears rational to me- they all result in far more destruction and human suffering than otherwise would exist, and are perpetrated by actors who claim to kill for their cause, but can be shown to be killing because they enjoy it. Furthermore, these acts often have predictable results that run counter to the claimed intent of the aggressor.

I’m not sure why, but there seems to have been a general lowering in inhibitions around the world over the last 2-3 years.
 
croakerfish

croakerfish

Well-Known Member
pilot
Mirage said:
Care to answer my questions? Like, do you think I'd not having troops there would cause NK to decide to cross the heavily fortified DMZ you mentioned? And why does the ROK need to jump to the "major leagues" as you put it?

If my questions ask have good answers, then sure, claim my argument is silly, but until then, let's have a debate where you actually have to use logic instead of hand waiving.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that anything we do that signals that we don’t have ROK’s back 100% (like withdrawing troops from ROK) will be interpreted by ROK, NK, Japan, China, Russia, Australia, Vietnam, Singapore and probably Indonesia that we are waffling on our stated willingness to pave over NK if they dare invade. Especially in light of the invasion of Ukraine, and the recent memory of Trump’s fuckery with NATO commitments.

To your second specific question, I think ROK/Japan and everyone else who doesn’t want to be beholden to the Middle Kingdom will need to step up to the plate IF we were to pull back in order to fill the capability/capacity gap we would create. You said so yourself so I’m really confused by what you are saying here.
 
R

Random8145

Registered User
sevenhelmet said:
Hamas attacking Israel.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Houthi attacks on shipping.

None of these appears rational to me- they all result in far more destruction and human suffering than otherwise would exist, and are perpetrated by actors who claim to kill for their cause, but can be shown to be killing because they enjoy it. Furthermore, these acts often have predictable results that run counter to the claimed intent of the aggressor.

I’m not sure why, but there seems to have been a general lowering in inhibitions around the world over the last 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
Couldn't it be said that Russia's invading Ukraine was very rational given Putin's thinking they would be a pushover?
 
BigRed389

BigRed389

Registered User
None
croakerfish said:
Yes, I think that anything we do that signals that we don’t have ROK’s back 100% (like withdrawing troops from ROK) will be interpreted by ROK, NK, Japan, China, Russia, Australia, Vietnam, Singapore and probably Indonesia that we are waffling on our stated willingness to pave over NK if they dare invade. Especially in light of the invasion of Ukraine, and the recent memory of Trump’s fuckery with NATO commitments.

To your second specific question, I think ROK/Japan and everyone else who doesn’t want to be beholden to the Middle Kingdom will need to step up to the plate IF we were to pull back in order to fill the capability/capacity gap we would create. You said so yourself so I’m really confused by what you are saying here.
Click to expand...
Yup. And if we’re withdrawing there, pretty much no reason to keep forces in Japan either. Our combat force footprint for USFK isn’t exactly all that heavy considering what purpose it serves…and if anything USFJ is way heavier and in a practical sense, nearly as close. Likewise, symbolically, USFK is probably even more annoying to the PRC than to NK.

Would essentially be signaling a withdrawal from our influencing INDOPAC in general.
 
Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The idea that we're going to withdraw our standing forces in Japan or Korea isn't even worth talking about. That would be anathema to every policy, treaty and theme in our guiding National Security Strategic documents. This is some kind of Libertarian isolationist fever dream that is about as well thought out as abolishing the IRS. I think reasonable people can all agree that it's a bad idea.
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
All the examples y'all have given are completely rational. Russia thought they could take Ukraine and make Putin look like a rockstar to his domestic audience, among other wins. Hamas leaders thought (correctly) they could restore their popularity and perhaps find a better solution for the Palestinians than the jail they've been in for decades. Bush thought Iraq had nukes and was hiding them and he could potentially prevent future catastrophy.

Regardless, though, I can name 50 completely rational wars for every example given here. To say all wars are irrational betrays a complete ignorance of history. I wonder what Schelling would think of such a comment, Brett? I know basically any other respected historian or political scientist would just laugh.

Brett327 said:
The idea that we're going to withdraw our standing forces in Japan or Korea isn't even worth talking about. That would be anathema to every policy, treaty and theme in our guiding National Security Strategic documents. This is some kind of Libertarian isolationist fever dream that is about as well thought out as abolishing the IRS. I think reasonable people can all agree that it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, America simply cannot continue on the unreasonable debt-fueled path we're on, and we're well past the point where fixing our spending/debt issues will be easy or not involve us doing many things we don't want to do. Unfortunately, the longer it takes folks like us here to realize that and demand drastic changes, the more painful it's going to be. Insisting other countries defend themselves during peacetime, with our security guarantee should war develop, is quite reasonable.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Mirage said:
All the examples y'all have given are completely rational. Russia thought they could take Ukraine and make Putin look like a rockstar to his domestic audience, among other wins. Hamas leaders thought (correctly) they could restore their popularity and perhaps find a better solution for the Palestinians than the jail they've been in for decades. Bush thought Iraq had nukes and was hiding them and he could potentially prevent future catastrophy.

Regardless, though, I can name 50 completely rational wars for every example given here. To say all wars are irrational betrays a complete ignorance of history.


Like it or not, America simply cannot continue on the unreasonable debt-fueled path we're on, and we're well past the point where fixing our spending/debt issues will be easy or not involve us doing many things we don't want to do. Unfortunately, the longer it takes folks like us here to realize that and demand drastic changes, the more painful it's going to be. Insisting other countries defend themselves during peacetime, with our security guarantee should war develop, is quite reasonable.
Click to expand...
Tell ya what…let’s reverse the tables. Tell us which war was rational?
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Griz882 said:
Tell ya what…let’s reverse the tables. Tell us which war was rational?
Click to expand...
First, I'll add one more thing I thought of. If you want to run a thought experiment and see if the world is run by rational actors or not, it's just as instructive to look at grand strategic decisions that weren't war. For example, NK hasn't attacked SK in almost 75 years. Iran has not attacked Israel directly. Russia has not attacked a NATO nation. No country has declared war on a nuclear power. And so on. All rational decisions by rational actors who would have loved to act irrationally, but knew better.

As for which war was rational... All of them I can think of. But, one obvious example is WW1. Or WW2. Or should we talk about the Civil War? Or perhaps the Korean War would be appropriate for this thread... Take your pick and explain to us how it was irrational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top