On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:53:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:43:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:26 PM, wrote:

I am sure we are "trying to influence" their elections if they
actually had elections. The propaganda arm of the US government has
been going strong for 100 years. (did you watch the PBS WWI show?)
I am still thinking what I said in the other post. Maybe the best
thing we could do is lose Korea and let Kim try to perpetuate the lie
with 50 million south Koreans in his camp.


That would work. You can't take knowledge away from the South Koreans.
Problem is, they would pay a heavy humanitarian price.

How much damage would a nuclear war on the peninsula cost in
humanitarian terms?

NK could wreak tremendous havoc on the south with purely conventional arms. That's the big fear, and
the reason we have a 'trip wire' US presence over there. Weapons like the one below can reach Seoul
without NK crossing the DMZ.

http://tinyurl.com/ma9y9tv

On 4/17/2017 8:32 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:53:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:43:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:26 PM, wrote:

I am sure we are "trying to influence" their elections if they
actually had elections. The propaganda arm of the US government has
been going strong for 100 years. (did you watch the PBS WWI show?)
I am still thinking what I said in the other post. Maybe the best
thing we could do is lose Korea and let Kim try to perpetuate the lie
with 50 million south Koreans in his camp.


That would work. You can't take knowledge away from the South Koreans.
Problem is, they would pay a heavy humanitarian price.

How much damage would a nuclear war on the peninsula cost in
humanitarian terms?

NK could wreak tremendous havoc on the south with purely conventional arms. That's the big fear, and
the reason we have a 'trip wire' US presence over there. Weapons like the one below can reach Seoul
without NK crossing the DMZ.

http://tinyurl.com/ma9y9tv



I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

A year ago I wouldn't be so sure.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:38:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/17/2017 8:32 AM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:53:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:43:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:26 PM, wrote:

I am sure we are "trying to influence" their elections if they
actually had elections. The propaganda arm of the US government has
been going strong for 100 years. (did you watch the PBS WWI show?)
I am still thinking what I said in the other post. Maybe the best
thing we could do is lose Korea and let Kim try to perpetuate the lie
with 50 million south Koreans in his camp.


That would work. You can't take knowledge away from the South Koreans.
Problem is, they would pay a heavy humanitarian price.

How much damage would a nuclear war on the peninsula cost in
humanitarian terms?

NK could wreak tremendous havoc on the south with purely conventional arms. That's the big fear, and
the reason we have a 'trip wire' US presence over there. Weapons like the one below can reach Seoul
without NK crossing the DMZ.

http://tinyurl.com/ma9y9tv



I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

A year ago I wouldn't be so sure.


The problem is time. If we keep a carrier close by, then the south may stand a chance. But the NK
has tremendous numbers of everything. It may be old, but it's 'quantity' that counts with them.

I led a study in 1981, using a computerized wargame. The results were not heartening for the south.
Within four days the north had driven to Seoul. The south loved the analysis because it gave them
more reason to ask for more help.

No, I don't think the north could win, but they could sure create a lot of havoc in a short time.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:38:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

.... As long as China stayed out if it.
Been there, done that.

On 4/17/2017 1:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:38:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

... As long as China stayed out if it.
Been there, done that.



I don't think the crazy fat kid is on the Chinese president's Christmas
card list.

On 4/17/17 1:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/17/2017 1:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:38:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

... As long as China stayed out if it.
Been there, done that.



I don't think the crazy fat kid is on the Chinese president's Christmas
card list.



I forgot...who is the crazy fat kid...Trump or the North Korean guy? The
descriptor fits both. BTW, I posted a photo of myself in the usual
accessible place and URL'ed it. I'm surprised the usual assholes here
didn't snarf it up.

On 4/17/2017 2:31 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/17/17 1:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/17/2017 1:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:38:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

... As long as China stayed out if it.
Been there, done that.



I don't think the crazy fat kid is on the Chinese president's Christmas
card list.



I forgot...who is the crazy fat kid...Trump or the North Korean guy? The
descriptor fits both. BTW, I posted a photo of myself in the usual
accessible place and URL'ed it. I'm surprised the usual assholes here
didn't snarf it up.



Not big on my wish list Harry. :-)

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:31:17 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/17/17 1:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/17/2017 1:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:38:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suspect that if NK ever attacked SK with conventional weapons we,
under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

... As long as China stayed out if it.
Been there, done that.



I don't think the crazy fat kid is on the Chinese president's Christmas
card list.



I forgot...who is the crazy fat kid...Trump or the North Korean guy? The
descriptor fits both. BTW, I posted a photo of myself in the usual
accessible place and URL'ed it. I'm surprised the usual assholes here
didn't snarf it up.

He's the guy whose picture was posted here recently, or at least that's what I think of every time I
see the thread title. That would be you, by the way.

A picture of you already exists. Why post more?

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:59:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

under the Trump administration, would quickly put an end to it without
use of nuclear weapons.

... As long as China stayed out if it.
Been there, done that.



I don't think the crazy fat kid is on the Chinese president's Christmas
card list.


I have seen a lot of talking about that. China really likes having a
closed society, communist government on their southern border. They
certainly do not want to be backed up against a capitalist juggernaut
like the South.
I imagine they would be OK with a hybrid like Vietnam but that can
only happen if the north would be exposed to an American culture like
South Vietnam brought with them when they were "conquered".
Unfortunately South Korea may be too western for China, even if they
were assimilated into the north.
OTOH the Chinese did accept Hong Kong but that is a very isolated
place.

I am guessing the Chinese are very conflicted on this but they may
feel they have some implied treaty obligations if we attacked the
north. This is where I hope Trump or someone in the west can just make
a deal with the Chinese so we don't have to seek a military solution
because I do not see a "win" in it.