Let’s have a war!

[jfish26]

NK supposedly sending troops to fight Ukraine within a month.

They musta finally heard about GWB.

[TDub]

NK supposedly sending troops to fight Ukraine within a month.

They musta finally heard about GWB.

just clearing a little nazi problem and defending themselves against the tyrannical United States who is, very clearly, responsible for the conflict.

[ousdahl]

I think most of us are willing to acknowledge that throughout our history the US has made mistakes. Lied. Pushed propaganda. Etc.


Do we have to do that each time something happens? Because it seems silly. Russia is the bad guy here. In this instance.

That doesn't mean Ukraine is perfect.

This isn't hard.

Exactly.

I’ve been thinking all day about what or whether to post.

And though I’m tempted to try and respond to every goofy thing, lemme just keep this concise and say…thanks.

This validates a lot for me.

[KUTradition]

shoulda thought longer and harder

[Overlander]

NK supposedly sending troops to fight Ukraine within a month.

If that happens, this takes a nasty turn

[KUTradition]

i’m guessing France would be first to return the favor

[Overlander]

Send in the FFL

[Sparko]

The nuclear weapons promised to the most dangerous despot on earth for helping them invade Ukraine seem a little badly thought out. Putin being a strategic mastermind and all.

[TDub]

NK supposedly sending troops to fight Ukraine within a month.

If that happens, this takes a nasty turn

indeed, and quickly.

I'd like off this timeline, maybe the world really did end in 2012 and this is some sort of alternate reality ha

[jfish26]

NK supposedly sending troops to fight Ukraine within a month.

If that happens, this takes a nasty turn

indeed, and quickly.

I'd like off this timeline, maybe the world really did end in 2012 and this is some sort of alternate reality ha

Maybe I’m being naive, but - what does it matter?

I understand in a manner of speaking it could be seen as a major escalation…but only if the adults in the room treat it as one.

I think - and hope - that we would use it not as an excuse to disarm NK (cue the flying monkeys!) but as a logical reason to expand Ukraine’s ability to weaken Russia behind its own borders. Which serves all of the goals.

[Sparko]

Disarming a crazy psychopath is a rational decision before it is too late. But he has generations of weapons. There is a Hobson's choice with NK. Risky no matter what. Disarm or not is probably going to lead to disaster

[TDub]

If that happens, this takes a nasty turn

indeed, and quickly.

I'd like off this timeline, maybe the world really did end in 2012 and this is some sort of alternate reality ha

Maybe I’m being naive, but - what does it matter?

I understand in a manner of speaking it could be seen as a major escalation…but only if the adults in the room treat it as one.

I think - and hope - that we would use it not as an excuse to disarm NK (cue the flying monkeys!) but as a logical reason to expand Ukraine’s ability to weaken Russia behind its own borders. Which serves all of the goals.

I think it matters because it represents a fairly significant escalation and brings us one giant leap forward towards a world War type conflict.

1. It would mean a non directly involved country with boots on the ground in a part of the world a continent away.

2. It would mean another player actively helping invade a sovereign nation....I see a big difference between defense assistance and invasion assistance.

3. Will it "break the dam"? If and when they were to engage with troops, that opens the door for EU, US, countries to reciprocate and the potential for that to get out of control quickly exists.

4. North Korea hasn't been in a conflict in 50 years. They are desperate and desperate people do dangerous things.

5. What did Putin promise Kim? My assumption is that it involves some sort of Nuclear knowledge, I would prefer NK not become any more Nuclear capable.


Now, on the flipside, we might have a bunch of NK soldiers thay sre exposed to the outside world for the first time ever and perhaps they can bring reality back to NK and break the Kim spell.

There is also the possibility of a mass exodus of soldiers using th3 opportunity as a way to defect. Neither of those lessen the impact of the previous concerns though

[jfish26]

Disarming a crazy psychopath is a rational decision before it is too late. But he has generations of weapons. There is a Hobson's choice with NK. Risky no matter what. Disarm or not is probably going to lead to disaster

I agree with you. I just feel that - as obviously deserving at it would be - attacking NK here would be an affirmative choice to expand the envelope of the conflict.

Of fucking course it would really just be a logical response to Russia and NK making that affirmative choice.

But in my view the price of responding with direct force is too high.

Which I know cuts against my bona fides as an agent of the warmongering military industrial complex/Bush-Cheney right.

I contain multitudes.

[jfish26]

indeed, and quickly.

I'd like off this timeline, maybe the world really did end in 2012 and this is some sort of alternate reality ha

Maybe I’m being naive, but - what does it matter?

I understand in a manner of speaking it could be seen as a major escalation…but only if the adults in the room treat it as one.

I think - and hope - that we would use it not as an excuse to disarm NK (cue the flying monkeys!) but as a logical reason to expand Ukraine’s ability to weaken Russia behind its own borders. Which serves all of the goals.

I think it matters because it represents a fairly significant escalation and brings us one giant leap forward towards a world War type conflict.

1. It would mean a non directly involved country with boots on the ground in a part of the world a continent away.

2. It would mean another player actively helping invade a sovereign nation....I see a big difference between defense assistance and invasion assistance.

3. Will it "break the dam"? If and when they were to engage with troops, that opens the door for EU, US, countries to reciprocate and the potential for that to get out of control quickly exists.

4. North Korea hasn't been in a conflict in 50 years. They are desperate and desperate people do dangerous things.

5. What did Putin promise Kim? My assumption is that it involves some sort of Nuclear knowledge, I would prefer NK not become any more Nuclear capable.


Now, on the flipside, we might have a bunch of NK soldiers thay sre exposed to the outside world for the first time ever and perhaps they can bring reality back to NK and break the Kim spell.

There is also the possibility of a mass exodus of soldiers using th3 opportunity as a way to defect. Neither of those lessen the impact of the previous concerns though

I agree with everything you said. I would still lean toward strategic restraint.

[Sparko]

There are those who believe a new Korean War is part of Putin's October Surprise gift. I read an article month or so ago gaming this out. Seems pretty out there until you look at TDub's concern #5. He promised unknown things.

[jfish26]

There are those who believe a new Korean War is part of Putin's October Surprise gift. I read an article month or so ago gaming this out. Seems pretty out there until you look at TDub's concern #5. He promised unknown things.

I struggle to see how that would help Trump get elected, though, which is Putin's goal.

I suppose the play could be some ham-fisted, peacenik-exploiting hostagetaking: "If the Americans elect that belligerent warmonger Biden, that imperialist tool of the military industrial complex, then Russia will have no choice but to defend the North Korean people from NATO's aggression by supplying North Korea with offensive weapons."

[MICHHAWK]

russia can't beat ukraine in a war.

nk. russia. 3rd world $#!tholes.

[jfish26]

russia can't beat ukraine in a war.

nk. russia. 3rd world $#!tholes.

And yet, you will not vote for the person who stands between us and shadow-alliances with each of NK and Russia.

[TDub]

Maybe I’m being naive, but - what does it matter?

I understand in a manner of speaking it could be seen as a major escalation…but only if the adults in the room treat it as one.

I think - and hope - that we would use it not as an excuse to disarm NK (cue the flying monkeys!) but as a logical reason to expand Ukraine’s ability to weaken Russia behind its own borders. Which serves all of the goals.

I think it matters because it represents a fairly significant escalation and brings us one giant leap forward towards a world War type conflict.

1. It would mean a non directly involved country with boots on the ground in a part of the world a continent away.

2. It would mean another player actively helping invade a sovereign nation....I see a big difference between defense assistance and invasion assistance.

3. Will it "break the dam"? If and when they were to engage with troops, that opens the door for EU, US, countries to reciprocate and the potential for that to get out of control quickly exists.

4. North Korea hasn't been in a conflict in 50 years. They are desperate and desperate people do dangerous things.

5. What did Putin promise Kim? My assumption is that it involves some sort of Nuclear knowledge, I would prefer NK not become any more Nuclear capable.


Now, on the flipside, we might have a bunch of NK soldiers thay sre exposed to the outside world for the first time ever and perhaps they can bring reality back to NK and break the Kim spell.

There is also the possibility of a mass exodus of soldiers using th3 opportunity as a way to defect. Neither of those lessen the impact of the previous concerns though

I agree with everything you said. I would still lean toward strategic restraint.

I agree with that, but I do think it would signal a significant escalation. I also don't know how long Europe (or U.S) would allow continued escalation without a measured but harsh response. Which, of course, could lead any number of places.

[MICHHAWK]

this all seems like a europe problem.