Say Trump orders insane military action. What next?

[Ajidica]

by a standoff between capitalistic democracies and authoritarian communists.

What makes you think South Korea at the time of the Korean War was a "capitalistic democracy".
Or than any of the sordid little dictators "the West" spent most of the Cold War propping up could be described as a "capitalistic democracy".

Plus, given that the United Kingdom for much of the Cold War was lead by an avowed socialist party and France had a military coup, the capitalist/democracy label begins to look a bit sketchy.

 

[REDY]

I cannot imagine that any such action would be without Korean approval so I sleep calm.

Koreans are pretty much scared of NK. When will NK collapse the millions of indoctrinated poor people will need help. Plus NK can annihilate conventionally lot of North.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't think the koreans (all the koreans)should be so calm. There are two dangerous circumstances going. Infighting in the imperial capital that makes a foreign war tempting. And not having that war means strategic defeat in the short term: the US eventually loses its ability to wage war in Korea without fear of some very damaging retaliation. That does not mean the US wins, but it loses its relevance (and political leverage) in South Korea. With the fears about the rise of China as the big strategic competitor, losing that position in the korean peninsula will be a big blow. Some strategists will be tempted to overthrow the game rather than let it run this course. Thus an influential "war party" probably exists that believes a war to be a sane option. And the chinese and the south koreans do seem very nervous.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The intelligent thing for the intelligent people to do would be for South Korea to strike a deal with China. China doesn't have a problem, really, with a united Korea, they have a problem with a country directly on their border hosting unpredictable US troops. So they both would be satisfied by an agreement that moves out the NK regime to a hospitable retirement somewhere, unification, and Korea cutting military ties with the US.

 

[metatron]

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.

This is not just for Valka.
Other Canadians are perfectly welcome to volunteer an assessment.

 

[EnglishEdward]

What makes you think South Korea at the time of the Korean War was a "capitalistic democracy".

That is a complete strawman, it is not what I typed and not what I think.

Or than any of the sordid little dictators "the West" spent most of the Cold War propping up could be described as a "capitalistic democracy".

The character of the primary members of the western alliance e.g. USA, Canada, UK, France, West Germany, Italy was "capitalist democracies" from 1948 to 1990.
And your indeed your words imply that those sordid dictators being propped up by the west were not of the West and therefore not in themselves the key players.

I don't think the koreans (all the koreans)should be so calm. There are two dangerous circumstances going. Infighting in the imperial capital that makes a foreign war tempting. And not having that war means strategic defeat in the short term: the US eventually loses its ability to wage war in Korea without fear of some very damaging retaliation. That does not mean the US wins, but it loses its relevance (and political leverage) in South Korea. With the fears about the rise of China as the big strategic competitor, losing that position in the korean peninsula will be a big blow. Some strategists will be tempted to overthrow the game rather than let it run this course. Thus an influential "war party" probably exists that believes a war to be a sane option. And the chinese and the south koreans do seem very nervous.

Quite so.

And for the US to follow the do nothing option effective i.e. of simply letting North Korea proceed to improve its capability until its
ICBMs can nuke the continental USA is arguably dangerously negligent significantly increasing the strategic risk to the USA.

The concept that the USA can thereafter rely on deterrence assumes that the NK leadership remains objectively rational.
There is no evidence for that. People think in bubbles and the local logic within a bubble is meaningless if applied outside.
Wars have broken out on that basis. Viewed objectively it made no sense for France to start the Franco-Prussian war or
for the Argentina to invade the territory of a nuclear power, and yet those two wars happened because of internal politics.

The intelligent thing for the intelligent people to do would be for South Korea to strike a deal with China. China doesn't have a problem, really, with a united Korea, they have a problem with a country directly on their border hosting unpredictable US troops. So they both would be satisfied by an agreement that moves out the NK regime to a hospitable retirement somewhere, unification, and Korea cutting military ties with the US.

I fear that a problem is that the NK leadership can not understand the concept of a hospitable retirement.

 

[Berzerker]

And for the US to follow the do nothing option effective i.e. of simply letting North Korea proceed to improve its capability until its
ICBMs can nuke the continental USA is arguably dangerously negligent significantly increasing the strategic risk to the USA.

NK is a puppet of its neighbors, both of whom can already nuke us, both of whom will not be happy if NK does so without their approval. They wont survive either...

The concept that the USA can thereafter rely on deterrence assumes that the NK leadership remains objectively rational. There is no evidence for that.

The dude just blinked

 

[EnglishEdward]

Perhaps they are realising that makes as much sense as owning a Rottweiler with rabies.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont think China and Russia are worried about NK turning on them

 

[Commodore]

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?

Assuming nukes didn't start flying all over the world, Congress would likely begin the process of removing the president from office since current US policy is that we will not launch a first strike when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.

If it was a conventional invasion, then what I said above would play out. Congress would also investigate the military action and if they determine that the president acted unlawfully, they would take the appropriate action which would likely involve them pressuring Trump to resign and only proceed with impeachment if he refuses. Either way, an obvious unlawful military action that does not have widespread support among the people or Congress would likely result in Trump no longer being president.

In short, to answer your main question of "what would Congress do about it?": Well, that all depends on exactly what Trump does, how unlawful it is, and how much public and Congressional support it has.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I fear that a problem is that the NK leadership can not understand the concept of a hospitable retirement.

I think they would understand it if it were presented with a comfortable path to it and a compelling reason to take it. China could pretty easily provide both. With South Korea playing host to the US China has no interest in presenting either one.

 

[Commodore]

With South Korea playing host to the US China has no interest in presenting either one.

The irony being that if China did provide that "way out" to North Korea and the situation was successfully resolved, there would then be immense political pressure both in South Korea and the US for the US to close its bases in South Korea.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The irony being that if China did provide that "way out" to North Korea and the situation was successfully resolved, there would then be immense political pressure both in South Korea and the US for the US to close its bases in South Korea.

I agree. But as i said in my post before that one China is only going to go for it if they have an agreement already in place with South Korea. If I were in charge in South Korea I would certainly be considering making that agreement.

 

[Commodore]

I agree. But as i said in my post before that one China is only going to go for it if they have an agreement already in place with South Korea. If I were in charge in South Korea I would certainly be considering making that agreement.

I would too. One way or another, this situation can't continue as it has and needs to be resolved. And if there is any room for a peaceful solution, then it must be at least attempted since resolving it through war is increasingly looking to be a losing prospect for all potential parties involved.

 

[metalhead]

The problem is that everyone in the current and last 3 administrations isn't thinking in terms of offering China what it wants - a military buffer. Before Trump became president I would have thought it ridiculous for China to fear the Korean peninsula as a staging area for a U.S. invasion of the Chinese mainland. I still think that's kind of insane, but I can at least understand why they would feel threatened considering our military presence there.

If that is the sticky wicket, why not offer it up? What good do all of those troops do anyways? It's not like we can't establish air superiority in a matter of minutes, and the DMZ makes any attempted land invasion little more than target practice, as it was intended to do. If we close most of our bases and just retain a few airstrips, that would probably help to push China to make a deal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem is that everyone in the current and last 3 administrations isn't thinking in terms of offering China what it wants - a military buffer. Before Trump became president I would have thought it ridiculous for China to fear the Korean peninsula as a staging area for a U.S. invasion of the Chinese mainland. I still think that's kind of insane, but I can at least understand why they would feel threatened considering our military presence there.

If that is the sticky wicket, why not offer it up? What good do all of those troops do anyways? It's not like we can't establish air superiority in a matter of minutes, and the DMZ makes any attempted land invasion little more than target practice, as it was intended to do. If we close most of our bases and just retain a few airstrips, that would probably help to push China to make a deal.

You're missing the point. The deal that solves the problem is a deal between South Korea and China...made without the US.

 

[metalhead]

It has to involve us. The South Koreans aren't going to kick us out. They may not even have the authority to do so without our agreement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It has to involve us. The South Koreans aren't going to kick us out. They may not even have the authority to do so without our agreement.

I used to work for this car dealer, who taught me a valuable lesson. If we did absolutely everything right, then when the day came that a customer decided to sue us we were going to lose, because when it came down to good little citizen v big evil car dealership the legalities wouldn't matter. I suspect that whether SK has the authority or not is a similarly moot point.

The question is whether they recognize that having us as an ally is more likely to get them into a war than not, and that if we get them into a war our considerations regarding victory will likely not even factor in allied casualties. In any sensible analysis being a US ally is pretty much the worst possible position. It was certainly a good position when the US record was a string of quality leadership, and an acceptable position when GWBush could be passed off as some sort of aberration, but now it's time to get off that ship.

 

[metalhead]

Well sure, if they want to sever our alliance that could be a different story, but I believe that our mutual defense pact and alliance treaties are multi-lateral. And while sure, legality might not matter much, South Korea exports an awful lot of goods to the United States. There are practical trade risks in trashing their relationship with us, especially with Trump as president. The world is likely just going to take a deep breath and hope for a return to normalcy.

 

[aelf]

Assuming nukes didn't start flying all over the world, Congress would likely begin the process of removing the president from office since current US policy is that we will not launch a first strike when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.

If it was a conventional invasion, then what I said above would play out. Congress would also investigate the military action and if they determine that the president acted unlawfully, they would take the appropriate action which would likely involve them pressuring Trump to resign and only proceed with impeachment if he refuses. Either way, an obvious unlawful military action that does not have widespread support among the people or Congress would likely result in Trump no longer being president.

In short, to answer your main question of "what would Congress do about it?": Well, that all depends on exactly what Trump does, how unlawful it is, and how much public and Congressional support it has.

Good answer. But I do have to wonder. In the event of a 'pre-emptive strike' ordered by Trump, other parties are not simply going to wait until the US political system removes the bad decision maker and resolves the situation. NK would almost definitely take some kind of retaliatory military action. China and other a few other countries might also do something.

If a conflict breaks out because of Trump's decision, is there any chance that Congress would refrain from taking any political action and stand behind the President at least until the conflict is over? Is there any realistic chance that, unpopular as it may be, a resulting conflict that is already underway would actually have to be fought in the eyes of the American government and power brokers?