"If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will."

[philip_hughes]

I don't doubt the greed of many in power, i just don't know what the "right" thing to do is. 2 wrongs don't make a right but is it ok if 2 wrongs stop a war?

[Ketraar]

The problem with the notion of "lesser of two evils" is that for those getting the evil its a moot issue, since for them its just bad. I have a hard time dealing with the notion that the people making choices for others, invoking having the right answer, then utterly fail and the consequences effect others. Then shrugging with the misguided sense of "oh well we tried".

This is an old concept of people in power playing Real Life Europa Universalis.

MFG

Ketraar

[Usenko]

Brinkmanship with nuclear weapons. A fun game for all concerned . . .

(In a "Not-fun-at-all" sort of a way)

[Morkonan]

The problem with the notion of "lesser of two evils" is that for those getting the evil its a moot issue, since for them its just bad. I have a hard time dealing with the notion that the people making choices for others, invoking having the right answer, then utterly fail and the consequences effect others. Then shrugging with the misguided sense of "oh well we tried".

This is an old concept of people in power playing Real Life Europa Universalis...

Bad things happen. Often, when one is faced with a terrible situation, there's not going to be any outcome that someone not in that situation would call "good." Sometimes, such situations have nothing but outcomes that one would consider unacceptable. Unless, of course, the situation itself is ultimately worse than any possible fix and it, itself, will not provide an inevitable solution to... itself.

I don't think there's an individual person, culture or nation that doesn't hold to one of their most desired states being one of "stability." Everyone loves the heck out stability. This obsession with it trends all the way up to Foreign Relations between superpowers - They may hate each other, but so long as they can predict each other's actions and reactions, they can form some basis for a common purpose, if nothing other than to prevent a war.

If "something bad" exists, what should our reaction be? Do nothing and maybe it will go away? Well, what if we had the power to make the Something Bad not happen anymore? Then, we're partly responsible for it continuing if we do nothing, right? What if doing something to stop the Something Bad might result in more, but different, Something Bad, but there's a chance for Something Good occurring where there was no such chance, before?

It'd be great if there were no Something Bads and nobody was blamed for them, since they didn't occur. It'd also be great if acting to stop or prevent a Something Bad didn't sometimes also result in more Something Bads occurring. But, real life isn't like that and instability is always a result of Change, small or great.

The truth is that stability, even if it is tyrannical, endears itself to many and even the oppressed value it, since they have some measure of predictability in their lives. But, it's also true that the more robust and stable the Something Bad is, the less chance there will ever be an eventual Something Good to happen.

TLDR: Bad Things rarely fix themselves.

Personally, I was against intervention in Libya in the way it occurred. IMO. it was primarily due to concerns over the stability of petroleum supplies to Europe and certain French economic interests in the region. France called in its "Allies" card and... we're off to Libya.

The reason that Libya and other countries that have experienced the instability of forced regime change suffer so much is that they fail to command the attention and concern of others AFTER a regional threat has been removed. People will pay a lot of money for bullets, but they don't have the same enthusiasm for paying for bandaids.

The days of an Emperor MacArther overseeing the rebuilding of a defeated nation are over. And, the days of a defeated people, especially those as fractured and divided as those in the Middle East, having the perseverance and ability to come together for a common purpose other than destruction are also... over.

But, does that mean that we should no longer try to fix Something Bads?

[greypanther]

if we were ok with a Taliban Afghanistan,

In fact this is what we will almost certainly have sooner rather than later. They now again control about a third of Afghanistan, I believe. How long before they control the majority of the country again? What use has all that money that we spent in that country expelling them? What use has all those UK and USA troops lost lives, been? I would say none at all, all wasted for no gain, as things return violently, to a tribal country and a thorn in the worlds side. As Afghanistan has been for many centuries.

Why did we go into Afghanistan anyway? Ignoring much history, refusing to learn the lessons.

And Saddam seems to be a lot more crazy then Stalin.

Do not get me wrong, I know Saddam was bad, very bad indeed, but saying he was madder; worse than Stalin has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this forum. Stalin killed millions of people, many millions of his own people, the only person who could be said to be worse, maybe, is Hitler or Mao. The only reasonable comparison, would be the fact that both were allies to an extent, then became arch enemies. Maybe I am misunderstanding things, but we obviously had very different History lessons!

Edit:

Brinkmanship with nuclear weapons. A fun game for all concerned . . .

(In a "Not-fun-at-all" sort of a way)

I suspect this is already very close. He does not need the ballistic missiles, he has already as good as said he will deliver the nuclear attack using his methods. I would be very careful around cargo ships. Just imagine the chaos if he manages to deliver a warhead this way? It could very well cause major problems for world commerce.

[Ketraar]

If "something bad" exists, what should our reaction be? Do nothing and maybe it will go away? Well, what if we had the power to make the Something Bad not happen anymore? Then, we're partly responsible for it continuing if we do nothing, right? What if doing something to stop the Something Bad might result in more, but different, Something Bad, but there's a chance for Something Good occurring where there was no such chance, before?

I'll answer with this quote

Why did we go into Afghanistan anyway? Ignoring much history, refusing to learn the lessons.

As it stands, history shows that when foreign Powers try to "do the right thing", be it defining how South-American countries should be structured, or which dictator should rule over oil land or the more bland "lets bring democracy to the oppressed", the record is very grim.

What constitutes "something bad" is possibly different for most people in the same culture group, nvm in different areas. Trying to tell a Stockholm syndrome victim that they are better off not being held hostage is something requires both time and care. Its not too different with the "something bad" you mentioned and possibly in need of action.

My concern is that a crow bar is hardly a reasonable tool outside of Half Life and that "bullying" your way into the minds of people indoctrinated into hate you will result the exact opposite what I assume we want as a result. Obviously something has to be done, but cornering a populist that thrives on acting tough will have one result ever. To subvert a populists power you need to remove the fuel, you remove hate. If you introduce a way for the populist to save face while being clear there is no real choice you possibly have much greater chances then going a a hands measuring contest.

The problem is doubly troublesome if you have 2 idiot populists that need that ego boost, even if just fake. If you have 2 man-childs that dont have anyone around with the balls (in NK case understandably so) to poke some sense into them this whole situation does just not end well and the more insecure they (both have tiny hands) the worse it gets.

MFG

Ketraar

[Santi]

To start with, there is nothing to solve in North Korea, I understand why this is escalating, Trump strike on Syria was excellent for his ratings and something that kind of united popular opinion, so obviously it is a good policy to follow, and pretty much Bombing the Dictator has become kind of a hobby for the most recent USA presidents.

NK still cannot fit a nuclear warhead into a missile and still does not have a long range missile, right now South Korea, China, Russia and Japan are within range and that is with a missile with a success rate of 2 out of 9 launches. NK missiles is derived of the reverse engineering of the Russian Scud. This is a very basic platform and can be easily intercepted.

Yes the country is impoverished and famine and lack of medical facilities are becoming chronic problems for the regime. But there is no alternative, the current model of western intervention guarantees pretty much Civil War as different factions fight for power.

[greypanther]

I have read that the last missile that fatty tried to launch was heading towards Russia and they destroyed it themselves! Papa Putin was not happy. It was sourced from the Daily Express and I cannot find it anywhere else, so have not linked it.

Meanwhile: Reuters has this report on North Korean media criticising the
Chinese.

A commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) referred to recent commentaries in China's People's Daily and Global Times newspapers, which it said were "widely known as media speaking for the official stand of the Chinese party and government."

"A string of absurd and reckless remarks are now heard from China every day only to render the present bad situation tenser," it said.

"China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the DPRK-China relations," the commentary said, referring to North Korea by the acronym for its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[notaterran]

I can't wait for the next threat of a "super-duper mega strike" against their enemies

[philip_hughes]

Sometimes i just want to get all the world leaders, put them in several rooms with actors and let them pretend they are in power while we get on with real life.

[Morkonan]

....the worse it gets.

Isn't this a sociopolitical theory, IIRC? Something along the lines of the so-called "Marxist Revolution" kind of theory, but one that is a bit more clinical/accepted.

IOW - Human societies change through violence, sometimes self-inflicted.

Well, if it isn't a broadly held theory, maybe it should be? Or, maybe it's just mine?

It's too rare that we every do anything to facilitate change unless the thing we're trying to change is in our own "backyard." Sure, an invading army can affect socio-political change, sometimes good, sometimes not-so-good. But, it seems the most enduring changes come to societies when they, themselves, implode with violence...

Change, itself, is not always good. Bad situations can be made worse, of course. In situations where good has come from them, they've generally had very strong leaders and movements emerge during the violence and, IMO, not necessarily those that are leading the movements/revolves. Those leaders, IMO, often tend to be using the opportunity to grab power. But, the emergent leaders, those thrust into the spotlight, may just not have had the notion, first, in their heads that they'll use the opportunity for their own purposes.

IOW - Maybe outside military intervention which is NOT intended to be an occupational/annexation attempt is always going to be doomed to fail in every way when it comes down to human societies. In the longrun, it may be that the only way a human society can change, and change for the better for its own people, is for it to revolt and change itself with leaders who emerge from the ranks of those who have risked their own lives/livelihood for a noble cause rather than opportunists looking for a power-grab.

ie: If you're going to invade, you must annex. If you don't, you will fail and the society will suffer for it. If a society is going to drastically change, it must do so from within and violence appears to be the only effective mechanism. But, "good change" only comes through emergent leaders of the revolt, not the original authors, who may either be corrupt or have other issues with being dedicated to the true Greater Good.

Note: It is rare in human history to find instances of powerful nations intervening, militarily, in the structure of others and that do not, also, seek occupation or annexation of those countries. Colloquially, I don't think this is really "a thing" in human history, so examples are sparse. Successful examples are probably even rarer...

[Usenko]

I'd say you're a bit pessimistic there.

The problem is not that military forces CAN'T accomplish goals other than annexation. It's more that their masters send them into a combat zone WITHOUT objectives.

When the Australian force went into East Timor about 10 years back to settle it down, it was highly successful, and that wasn't an annexation. It was simply that the task force was given totally clear objectives, with proper exit strategies and sunset clauses.

[Morkonan]

...
When the Australian force went into East Timor about 10 years back to settle it down, it was highly successful, and that wasn't an annexation. It was simply that the task force was given totally clear objectives, with proper exit strategies and sunset clauses.

I'll take a look at that.

What was the government of ET like before they.. uh... "went into" it to "settle it down?" Bureaucracy, with stable structure? Dictatorship? Anarchy?

I'll certainly take a look at that.

Several after-action puppet governments and even those that became independent arose after WWI&II. Well... we all know that the world map was basically re-written after WWI and to some extent after WWII, though much of that was probably just some re-adjusting. But, stable governments in Germany and Japan arose and, arguably, were much better than they were before. BUT, that's an adversarial situation and, by that time, there wasn't anyone around who hadn't known someone who had been killed because of those wars... That sort of sobers one up after the first twenty or so...

Thanks for the headsup, will check it out.

But, on "clear goals" and "exit strategies", I think that while they're important, they're not as important as actually knowing who the enemy is... Fighting insurgents, guerillas, several factions at once, loosely aligned tribes, night-shift combatants who serve one tea during the day... This is the stuff that military nightmares are made of. Who's the enemy, who is leading this foe, where is their capital so we can put our boots on it?

There's an old rule of warfare I remember reading a long time ago - Never fight anyone you can't talk to.

Pretty smart rule.

[Usenko]

But, on "clear goals" and "exit strategies", I think that while they're important, they're not as important as actually knowing who the enemy is... Fighting insurgents, guerillas, several factions at once, loosely aligned tribes, night-shift combatants who serve one tea during the day... This is the stuff that military nightmares are made of. Who's the enemy, who is leading this foe, where is their capital so we can put our boots on it?

There's an old rule of warfare I remember reading a long time ago - Never fight anyone you can't talk to.

Pretty smart rule.

Agreed. Actually, those are interrelated requirements.

[mrbadger]

America were forced to do that with Japan in WW2, it didn't end well for Japan, being the ones who were for the most part refusing to talk to the US.

It tends to result in the kind of big 'if you won't talk, here's something you can't ignore' event that happened, and we are still having repercussions from today.

[Morkonan]

TLDRs bolded.

...Agreed. Actually, those are interrelated requirements.

This is often the case. It's also often the case that when faced with a disorganized opponent, especially one comprised of several competing factions, in order to find "someone to talk to", the modern military adversary has to practically organize one's own enemy to create something that is actually worth talking to. It's kind of like artificially creating one's own opponent that one can then take to a negotiating table so that they practically become one's own ally... (Since they are an available conflict resolution asset, even if they're shooting at you, their existence as "someone to talk to" can serve one's own interests.) My opinions only, of course. That it's friggin crazy shouldn't therefore be a surprise.

ie: Paying off tribal leaders to come to the negotiating table and come to an agreement, even though they and other tribes may be continuing the conflict at the time, is one strategy. It can often fail, though. (ie: Pakistan's multiple large-sum payments to tribal leaders to establish a friendly zone in a region that is basically it's own sovereign state within Pakistan is an example of how things can go wrong. Supporting an opponent's/group's rise to power in order to establish stability or to prevent an undesirable state formation, even though they're not an ally, is another example. This is generally more successful, but the list of the thus created tyrants is too large to type out... These tactics were rampant during the Cold War. :/ )

TLDR 1: Some situations may truly be doomed, since there is no native force or leader that could hold power and that is also not interested in the nation's "Greater Good." (Humanitarian action and citizen well-being.)

On East Timor, an allegory: The ET situation appears to be one of a beach, with the ebb and flow of the tides of power exerting themselves in concert, not in direct conflict amongst themselves, but to establish an equilibrium by which they can come to an agreement as to how they can all make use of the beach.

An interesting situation, to be sure. At first glance, it appears humanitarian and appears to be a restoration of a state's sovereignty when its people are under severe tyranny. The involvement of the UN in the creation of the referendum and its resolution adds legitimacy to a "restoration" or "liberation" of an horrifically occupied nation.

There is one general factor to be considered in State Sovereignty that can't be ignored - Can the State, self-declared or not, hold its own borders? Nothing else matters in today's world, not "recognition", not the establishment of some form of "government" nor the "will of the People." Those regions a State can't maintain control over are regions in which it has lost its sovereignty and, for all practical purposes, those regions are up-for-grabs by anyone who CAN control them. We are a world bound by geography, not "logical entities." That's one reason the U.N. experiences difficulties in some areas. But, where is it's strongest control? It's in trade agreements and regulatory practices that enhance them, which can also be "logical entities" or "powers" not dependent on people standing on soil. But, these can represent real sources of influential power that can, in turn, be manipulated into furthering the interests of State's that can exert their influence over them in the conference room..

AND, why all this?

ET is a weird situation, to be sure. Upon basically declaring its independence, it was annexed by Indonesia. (Lesson - Don't declare one's sovereignty unless one can hold it in the face of opposition...)After more than a decade of occupation, including brutal crackdown's on independence movements and what appears to be a "scorched Earth" campaign by Indonesia as well as the introduction of what amounts to "replaced" populations, the U.N forces the issue and, finally with the support of Indonesia, holds a supervised referendum. After an affirmative vote for independence, it appears that the Indonesian military withdraws direct support for pro-Indonesian militants, but still provides some clandestine, deniable, aid. Insult added to injury, in some respects, but, and in my opinion, a bid to provide itself with a tool in the negotiations to come involving purely economic concerns that likely prompted the annexation to begin with - Oil.

The same economic concerns that, with the timeline, seems to point to more of a struggle to get "someone to come to the table" to establish stability in the region so that trade agreements could be made which involve sea sovereignty and petroleum exploitation rights...

As I interpret it with admittedly limited information, my apologies for any inaccuracies: ET is a nation that declares itself sovereign, but has no way to ensure that. Indonesia takes the opportunity to grab it and its resources. This destabilizes the region, but nobody really cares too much until trade and petroleum rights insert themselves. (Non-regional powers didn't care too much and basically supported "political stability" over "humanity.") The UN is pressured to step in and Indonesia withdraws, leaving only lightly supported "pro-Indonesia unification" forces, likely orphaned groups. Australia, the primary large power with the most concern over the situation, since it's in their own back-yard, steps in, now with the support of many, and helps to "settle the matter." Apparently, though, the "matter" doesn't directly appear to be humanitarian, but more of, again, establishing "someone to talk to" in order to establish trade zones involving sea rights and oil fields.

Meanwhile, ET remains "the most oil-dependent economy in the World." 1[/]

Some infos, comment if they conflict with Aussie points of view or conflicting facts: [url=http://www.review.upeace.org/index.cfm? ... ntrada=113]2[/] , [url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... e-boundary]3

[TLDR 2[/b]: The conflicts in East Timor, all of them after its original declaration of sovereignty, are a story of power-vacuums. Power expunged, power exerted, power then withdrawn, power introduced; All for external sovereign interests, with little in the way of actual "military" imposition of a State's or group's will in terms of conflict over territory or restoration, but, instead, a conflict geared towards economic resolution and political stability for establishment of same. Indonesia could not, in the face of military opposition from the strongest power in the region, Australia, which had a publicly "viable excuse" to intervene in the form of "humanitarian resolution" and "U.N. resolutions", hope to retain its annexed territory. So it made the best situation it could, retained negotiating power at the economic table, in the form of its clandestine support of militant groups, until it got the best deal it could, after which the militants in E.T. were basically orphaned. ("Power Withdrawn")

The situation is somewhat similar to the Crimea and Russia's annexation of it. However, in that case, Ukraine didn't "withdraw", per se, but it was subjected to intense political instability, after which it was effectively invaded while it's regional political authority was usurped and covert intelligence and military assets were used to overthrow the regional government/sovereignty. And, then, a regional power steps in to "protect the people." (Of course, Australia didn't act like Russia by creating instability in ET prior to intervention. I'm just saying that from an ET point of view, there are similarities with Ukraine in terms of the ebb and flow of events and the application of power, both political and military.)

Sorry for the length, as always. The impetus for it is due to seeing the dynamics of the deterrence of power, the application of power as well as the judicious and very influential withdrawal of power as it played out in ET. I'm not belittling anyone's sacrifice or performance, only noting that the withdrawal of power and influence (Indonesian) left a power vacuum only occupied by somewhat orphaned militant groups. It seems to be a battle purely for negotiating power and long-term legitimacy of potential trade agreements, considering the current state of negotiations and contention between Australia and ET.

Note: Aid does continue to flow into ET and true humanitarian efforts are ongoing. But, I don't see this as a primary state motivation for intervention, IMO, and the conflict was largely one of seeking equilibrium and stability in the face of a potential power vacuum dealing with sovereignty issues.

(Yes, when I get turned on by something, I go a bit overboard... Sorry, it's a personal failing of mine to acquire brief obsessions. But, I do still retain them, afterwards. Thank you for introducing me to the subject of East Timor/Timore Lest/etc )

[greypanther]

Wall of text is too much! I canna take any more!

[Morkonan]

Wall of text is too much! I canna take any more!

Yeah, I know... The thing is, when I delve into something new, I tend to gobble up info at a frantic rate... and then sometimes spew it out at an even greater rate...


The synopsis, after thinking about this particular case, has been somewhat digested overnight: (I welcome any criticisms, since I can't possibly have yet discovered a wide variety of points-of-view.)

There was little in the way of a continuing resistance in ET by the time "conventional" outside military force was applied.

Indonesia had, IMO, mostly withdrawn formal support for incorporation, which took most of the wind out the sails of militant, non-formal-or-covert-sponsored-groups, that were pro-Indonesian.

What influenced it maintained, IMO, was only to ensure a stronger position in the immediate future at expected negotiating tables.

I don't know what the current situation is, at the moment, because I looked no further than the most recent info I could find concerning the negotiating of sea rights and territorial waters dealing with petroleum exploits. However, by this time, as far as I am aware, the oil fields may have now been played out, so that might not even be a huge deal anymore.

That really doesn't matter, though. In this context, all that matters is that "violence" most certainly existed in ET, sponsored by Indonesia, which conducted a terror and scorched-earth campaign designed to spark capitulation. However, due to factors OTHER than "humanitarian reasons", large regional powers "intervened" and this halted Indonesia's violent campaign.

There was no peaceful resolution caused by the mere application of force, IMO, it was simply an exercise in power movement and then, redirection, once a new path to a satisfying goal was realized by Indonesia. The battle went from the homes of East Timorians to the trade-negotiating table.

[greypanther]

Looks like chubby has launched a new missile. This time with much more success.

North Korea has carried out another ballistic missile test, days after a new president took office in the South.

Japanese officials say the missile, which launched from north-western Kusong, reached an altitude of 2,000km.
........
Experts quoted by Reuters say the altitude meant the missile was launched at a high trajectory, limiting the lateral distance it travelled. They say if it had been fired at a standard trajectory, it would have had a range of at least 4,000km.