Say Trump orders insane military action. What next?

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't mean to undermine the sacrifice of north american soldiers but the number of deaths are really different. As an example France lost over 4% of its population during WW1 and 1.44% in WW2. Canada has it at under 1% for WW1 and 0.38% for WW2. The US even less. For once I agree with EnglishEdward

I'm sure the surviving family members are comforted by your statistics, and we should just stop observing Remembrance Day. After all, why bother observing a day that commemorates an event in which we did nothing?

And I should go find that conversation I had a couple of years ago on YouTube about an American guy posting travel tips to Canada. A guy from the Netherlands, when he saw my comment in which I said I was Canadian, said, "Canadian soldiers saved my grandmother and mother, and if not for them, I wouldn't have been born. Thank you." I guess I should tell him to not bother being grateful for his family having survived, and that I shouldn't have felt incredibly humbled by his thanks. After all, I didn't fight in any war, my grandfather was too young for WWI, too old for WWII, and my dad was also too young for WWII (he was in the reserves for awhile in the late '50s/early '60s).

Yep, next time somebody acknowledges what Canada did to help out in the world wars (years before the US finally stepped up, btw), I should just say, "meh, statistics say we didn't do anything worth mentioning."

Tie your statistics to a kite, and fly it.

 

[AdrienIer]

It's not statistics it's dead people. The numbers only serve to understand the order of magnitude. I didn't say north america did nothing. No one said that. Stop strawman-ing me.

Edit : I find it ironic that you attack me for lack of empathy when you posted against someone saying that Europe had been hit hard by wars.

 

[civvver]

I don't mean to undermine the sacrifice of north american soldiers but the number of deaths are really different. As an example France lost over 4% of its population during WW1 and 1.44% in WW2. Canada has it at under 1% for WW1 and 0.38% for WW2. The US even less. For once I agree with EnglishEdward

Seems kind of a silly thing to say since the wars were fought in europe, not the us, so it's hard to have us civlizan casualties logistically speaking. Or should the us and canada have sent boats of civilians over to be meat shields?

The us lost more soldiers than any allied power except for russia and canada lost a lot considering their size at the same.

Anyway, if NK threatens the US I'm pretty sure nato will back the US as a whole. I don't think trump will pre-emptively use nukes. That's foolhardy even for him. I think it's more a question of if korea uses like a small nuke on some colony and then the us responds by nuking their entire country a hundred fold. That seems more likely.

 

[Yeekim]

I think it's more a question of if korea uses like a small nuke on some colony and then the us responds by nuking their entire country a hundred fold. That seems more likely.

"More likely"?
Kim and his entire clique would have to be completely insane to do that - and there is no sign they are.
Kim needs to keep up the "foreign threat" to keep his regime legitimate and to stay in power.
Kim also needs to keep this threat from materializing for the exact same reason.
Which is why he will never, ever use a nuclear first strike against the US.

Trump could conceivably see attacking NK first as a bright idea.
There is even a small chance it might end well.

There is absolutely no way nuking the US could end well for NK.

EDIT: It is a remote possibility NK might try to hit US with a missile without a warhead - to demonstrate they could use real one, if attacked.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not statistics it's dead people. The numbers only serve to understand the order of magnitude. I didn't say north america did nothing. No one said that. Stop strawman-ing me.

Edit : I find it ironic that you attack me for lack of empathy when you posted against someone saying that Europe had been hit hard by wars.

You said:

I don't mean to undermine the sacrifice of north american soldiers but the number of deaths are really different. As an example France lost over 4% of its population during WW1 and 1.44% in WW2. Canada has it at under 1% for WW1 and 0.38% for WW2. The US even less. For once I agree with EnglishEdward

That's you, throwing statistics at me, as though what the real people went through never mattered.

Where did I express lack of empathy toward Europe? What angers me in discussions like these is if someone comes along and dismisses what Canada did.

 

[Borachio]

Canada's contributions at Vimy Ridge in WW1 and at Dieppe in WW2, amongst others, were certainly striking.

If "contributions" is quite the right word, I wouldn't like to say.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Seems kind of a silly thing to say since the wars were fought in europe, not the us, so it's hard to have us civlizan casualties logistically speaking. Or should the us and canada have sent boats of civilians over to be meat shields?

The us lost more soldiers than any allied power except for russia

Dont forget China or Yugoslavia. Always speaking of ww2 of course. In ww1 USA was nowhere.

 

[AdrienIer]

You said:
That's you, throwing statistics at me, as though what the real people went through never mattered.

Where did I express lack of empathy toward Europe? What angers me in discussions like these is if someone comes along and dismisses what Canada did.

You showed lack of empathy toward Europe when you implied that we shouldn't want land wars to happen outside our continent instead of on it.

No one dismissed Canada. Edward's comment was about fighting on your own soil, with the razed cities and civilian deaths that come with it. That was the additional cost we paid twice, that we don't want to pay again.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the actual numbers. This isn't a competition for largest number of deaths. On the other hand knowing the numbers helps understanding the scope. But apparently the millions of people behind those numbers aren't "real people" to you, so ok.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You showed lack of empathy toward Europe when you implied that we shouldn't want land wars to happen outside our continent instead of on it.

You're going to have to quote where I said that, because what I actually said was a reminder that Canadian soldiers went to Europe to help you... whereupon I got statistics thrown at me with the attitude of "meh, you didn't really do all that much."

Apparently it was a big enough deal to the guy from the Netherlands, if decades later he decided to thank a total stranger on a YouTube travel video page, once he found out I was Canadian. I passed his thanks along on the CBC website, btw, on the off-chance that the soldiers' relatives might be reading so they would know that their loved ones' efforts there were appreciated.

The truth is, I'm not in favor of wars being fought anywhere. I don't even use nukes or cruise missiles when I play Civ. My preferred method of acquiring tech and cities is to send in the diplomats and do it through bribery.

The comment someone else made about the Pacific countries showed an ignorance of basic geography. Canada and the US are Pacific countries. If something makes a big enough BOOM! over on the Asian side, we eventually get the fallout in our sky and washing up on the shores.

No one dismissed Canada. Edward's comment was about fighting on your own soil, with the razed cities and civilian deaths that come with it. That was the additional cost we paid twice, that we don't want to pay again.

I'm not saying you should pay twice, or should have paid once. But don't slap the faces of the non-European countries who helped you.

I remember decades ago when Ronald Reagan was musing about "fighting a limited nuclear war over Europe." My first reaction was that maybe he should have asked the Europeans how they felt about that, since I doubted they'd be in favor.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the actual numbers. This isn't a competition for largest number of deaths. On the other hand knowing the numbers helps understanding the scope. But apparently the millions of people behind those numbers aren't "real people" to you, so ok.

I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this <stuff>.

 

[Ryika]

we saw a number of morons who yelled that the pm should be ready to order EXACTLY a pre-emptive nuke strike, and if not then they should use nukes if hit by non-nuke stuff

Is that true?

The only controversy I saw was about what to do when his country has already been nuked. To which the right answer of course is to retaliate, because if you don't at least claim that that's what you're going to do, then that whole idea about mutually assured destruction as a concept is done for. He was repeatably pressed on answering that very question, what he's going to do if his country had been the target of a nuclear strike, and refused to answer.

 

[warpus]

The american military is controlled by a shadow government which would override any inherently insane directive and be prepared to perform a coup if it came down to it.

I don't really believe this but who would be surprised if it were true?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think there is something instructive in the "change of policy on transgender in the military." It begs the question whether even if the mood struck him to want some sort of "insane" first strike on [wherever], does he actually know how to go about ordering it? "Well, I tweeted in the middle of the night that I want them attacked" is not going to have any greater effect than "Well I tweeted in the middle of the night that we were reversing this policy" had.

 

[Hrothbern]

(f) A bilateral China-USA agreement would likely be reached that both China and the USA would in due
course stage their military withdrawal from a neutral united Korea that would trade with both countries.

I do not think it is in the interests of China and Russia to allow for a united Korea in the foreseeable future.
This article of the Moscow Times describes the geopolitical arguments (not in great but still sufficient depth)
(BTW The Moscow Times is not a Putin channel, but a reasonable good source for foreigners on Russia)

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/moscow-ponders-trumps-fire-and-fury-north-korea-58651

 

[EnglishEdward]

Check your history. There's a reason why there are Canadian military cemeteries in Europe, and there's a very large monument at Vimy. You're welcome.

I am aware of the helpful Canadian contribution during WW1 and WW2.

The UK also contributed to UN forces in the Korean war and left many of its dead there.

But back then, the geopolitics was simpler with clear cut threats: Hitler and his allies via the rest of world followed
by a standoff between capitalistic democracies and authoritarian communists. Now it is more multi-faceted
and the involvement of the UK would be unlikely to be anything better than become an unecessary complication.

Is that true?

I attach the Daily Express URL referring to British ambassador Matthew Rycroft telling the United Nations Security
Council the UK would "take action" against Kim should it be required to in a bid to protect citizens.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Kim-Jong-Un-Rex-Tillerson-UN-Security-Council

Normally I ignore the Daily Express, but for this instance I can recollect seeing something like this on the UK TV,
but alas I can not recollect which news channel it was.

I have three concerns about his statement.

Firstly his wording implies the UK might itself take independent action which is foolish because the UK has
no real ability to usefully do that (and talking like that would merely make the UK an example target for a NK
smuggled nuke); secondly because it implies the UK might slavishly auto-follow US action as in Iraq.
Thirdly I can imagine the harmless new white aircraft carrier sent East to show the flag being sunk, by mistake.

His problem is that he wants to support sensible US diplomacy by acting tough and thereby obviating the Trump desire
for military action, but that has the danger of encouraging adventurous activity and leading the UK down a slippery slope.

I do not think it is in the interests of China and Russia to allow for a united Korea in the foreseeable future.
This article of the Moscow Times describes the geopolitical arguments (not in great but still sufficient depth)
(BTW The Moscow Times is not a Putin channel, but a reasonable good source for foreigners on Russia)

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/moscow-ponders-trumps-fire-and-fury-north-korea-58651

An interesting article.

But if the status quo is not sustainable and conflict breaks out and there are open ended risks then the perception of geopoltical
interests likely changes and any agreement that provides for a neutral nuclear free united Korea might be preferable, although no doubt
other players such as Japan and Russia would prefer it not to be bilateral but would want to have their say in it perhaps via the UN.

I cannot help considering the U turn on Russian policy regarding Scotland. The Russian press official line was to be in favour of
Scottish independence vote when they thought that might weaken the UK and therefore NATO, but after the UK voted to leave the EU,
they abandoned the Scottish nationalists because they regarded the UK leaving the EU as being more important to their interests.

 

[Hrothbern]

But if the status quo is not sustainable and conflict breaks out and there are open ended risks then the perception of geopoltical
interests likely changes and any agreement that provides for a neutral nuclear free united Korea might be preferable, although no doubt
other players such as Japan and Russia would prefer it not to be bilateral but would want to have their say in it perhaps via the UN.

I guess reviving the Six-party talks, that were in place 2003-2009, with US, China, Russia, Japa, NK and SK, is the table to bind all parties in the diplomatic route.
On a neutral nuclear free united Korea, ignoring the Kim family.
Could the 3 superpowers agree on that as goal ? And will a united Korea feel safe without nuclear ?

On the latter an interesting interview with Pierre Gallois (1986), often regarded as the father of the French nuclear strategy (50ies), as anticipated necessary action to have in Europe a deterrence in place independent of the US before the Russians would be able to hit the US (60ies), which, as Gallion argued, would reduce the willingness of the US to protect Europe under all cirumstances. This fear was increased by the theory of "flexible response" getting hold in the US and the Suez war of 1956, where France and the UK were simply bullied aside by the US.
After the cost calculation was made for defending against Russia with a conventional European army (astronomical cost), his key argument was:
"We are a medium-sized power, not a great power, like America or Russia. Hence logically any enemy cannot take too many risks, to take over such a modest prey. Hence, if we are capable to inflict upon such an enemy enough damages, corresponding to the relatively small value that we may represent to his eyes, then we would be safe and he would do something else than attacking us, because the cost of such an attack would be excessive compared to the benefits of such an attack".
In the light of the geopolitical instability caused by Trump, for the European peninsula of Euroasia, the considerations mentioned by Gallion are even actual again.
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_A5E2A43ED3F84292B85F66FE35C38F90

I cannot help considering the U turn on Russian policy regarding Scotland. The Russian press official line was to be in favour of
Scottish independence vote when they thought that might weaken the UK and therefore NATO, but after the UK voted to leave the EU,
they abandoned the Scottish nationalists because they regarded the UK leaving the EU as being more important to their interests.

Well.... Europe is, in my humble opinion, seen (in hardcore power terms) by the superpowers somewhat as a bunch of naive weaklings, annoyingly pointing their "human rights fingers" in all directions, worn out by all the wars on their soil.
A bit like the bigger countries in Europe looked in the last two centuries upon Rome/Italy and Athens/Greece. Past glory, but nice people, food and culture.

Trump and Putin helping to erode our economical strenght. People like Erdogan, Orban, Kaczynski joining the party.

 

[aelf]

There's a lot Congress can do. The main thing they can do is refuse to pay for the war. You can't fight a war without money. The president may be the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, but Congress controls the budget. Congress also has the power to declare war, not the president and the president can only carry out military action without Congressional approval for a limited time. After that time limit is up (90 days) the president must go to Congress and either ask for an extension on the military action or to formally declare war.

If Congress denied the president's request for an extension and refused to formally declare war, the president would be forced to immediately recall the troops he deployed and cease the military action. If he does not, that would be an impeachable offense. And as far as I'm aware, the president has no way of overriding or sidestepping Congress's decision on the matter. Even Bush had to continually seek Congressional approval to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fair enough. But what of the attack that would have already taken place - what would Congress do about it? If Trump nuked something? If he put boots on the ground and killed a bunch of people? What if civilians were killed?

 

[Azem.Ocram]

A preemptive nuclear strike by The D'ump would end life as we know it. The planet will become irradiated from retaliation. A preemptive strike of any kind by North Korea will result in its destruction. A conventional (non-nuclear) preemptive strike against North Korea has unknown consequences. I presume China will go to war with the USA, the draft will be reinstated, massive protests and desertion will change the status quo, and The D'ump will no longer be president of the USA.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I guess reviving the Six-party talks, that were in place 2003-2009, with US, China, Russia, Japa, NK and SK, is the table to bind all parties in the diplomatic route.
On a neutral nuclear free united Korea, ignoring the Kim family.
Could the 3 superpowers agree on that as goal ? And will a united Korea feel safe without nuclear ?

On the latter an interesting interview with Pierre Gallois (1986), often regarded as the father of the French nuclear strategy (50ies), as anticipated necessary action to have in Europe a deterrence in place independent of the US before the Russians would be able to hit the US (60ies), which, as Gallion argued, would reduce the willingness of the US to protect Europe under all cirumstances. This fear was increased by the theory of "flexible response" getting hold in the US and the Suez war of 1956, where France and the UK were simply bullied aside by the US.
After the cost calculation was made for defending against Russia with a conventional European army (astronomical cost), his key argument was:
"We are a medium-sized power, not a great power, like America or Russia. Hence logically any enemy cannot take too many risks, to take over such a modest prey. Hence, if we are capable to inflict upon such an enemy enough damages, corresponding to the relatively small value that we may represent to his eyes, then we would be safe and he would do something else than attacking us, because the cost of such an attack would be excessive compared to the benefits of such an attack".
In the light of the geopolitical instability caused by Trump, for the European peninsula of Euroasia, the considerations mentioned by Gallion are even actual again.
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_A5E2A43ED3F84292B85F66FE35C38F90



Well.... Europe is, in my humble opinion, seen (in hardcore power terms) by the superpowers somewhat as a bunch of naive weaklings, annoyingly pointing their "human rights fingers" in all directions, worn out by all the wars on their soil.
A bit like the bigger countries in Europe looked in the last two centuries upon Rome/Italy and Athens/Greece. Past glory, but nice people, food and culture.

Trump and Putin helping to erode our economical strenght. People like Erdogan, Orban, Kaczynski joining the party.

Dont worry. Once the annoying UK is out, EU will become united political and military and kick some eroding ass with our superior industry and technology, and if that fails we will kill all them of cholesterolemia with our superior gastronomy. It is a win-win kind of situation.

 

[Berzerker]

ignore NK

 

[metatron]

and we should just stop observing Remembrance Day.

Maybe.
Or move the date (to reflect WW2) and change the tone of the whole thing at least.

This WW1 thing you people do every year doesn't strike you the least bit as a militaristic pageant?
You don't get any sense that maybe you are retelling a mythology about the moral dimensions of WW1?
This doesn't strike you as the elast bit nationalistic or at least somewhat out of step with your other modern liberal values as a country?

Is this about the causes or the persons?
Is this "we were the good guys" or is this about individual sacrifice?

The latter is a crucial point. I have follow-ups either way.