Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Sep '17 22:49
    I am surprised at the subdued reaction so far to Trump's ground breaking threat; perhaps all the commentators I anticipate are in a state of shock or denial. Ground breaking in its apparent reversal of long standing U.S. announced policy of "No first strike."
    Ground breaking is the simple utterance of such a threat.
    I'm looking for a plausible rationale inside the 'inner circle' of American foreign policy makers.
    A suggestion: If the North Korean genie escapes the bottle, the use of nuclear weapons becomes inevitable. Not from North Korea necessarily.
    Other states (Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany etc) will have learned that the International structure that has contained the use of these weapons has broken down and that individual countries must enter the club or be rendered defenseless.

    Please, I'm not suggesting that the rationale obtains.
    I'm at a loss and looking for some comments.
  2. 19 Sep '17 23:32
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    I am surprised at the subdued reaction so far to Trump's ground breaking threat; perhaps all the commentators I anticipate are in a state of shock or denial. Ground breaking in its apparent reversal of long standing U.S. announced policy of "No first strike."
    Ground breaking is the simple utterance of such a threat.
    I'm looking for a plausible rationale ...[text shortened]... se, I'm not suggesting that the rationale obtains.
    I'm at a loss and looking for some comments.
    What do you think the reaction should be?
  3. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    20 Sep '17 00:17
    It's a nervous, shaking tree and us but wee creatures wondering when it will fall.
  4. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    20 Sep '17 00:26
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    What do you think the reaction should be?
    I don't mind admitting I'm at a total loss on how to solve the N Korea issue, short of America, Russia, and China simultaneously attacking this little toilet bug (with the bad haircut) and installing a government run by Dalai Lama disciples.
  5. 20 Sep '17 00:33
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I don't mind admitting I'm at a total loss on how to solve the N Korea issue, short of America, Russia, and China simultaneously attacking this little toilet bug (with the bad haircut) and installing a government run by Dalai Lama disciples.
    Is that what you'd recommend?
  6. 20 Sep '17 01:15
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I don't mind admitting I'm at a total loss on how to solve the N Korea issue, short of America, Russia, and China simultaneously attacking this little toilet bug (with the bad haircut) and installing a government run by Dalai Lama disciples.
    Russia and China? They are the allies of the Rocket Man.

    In fact, China has armed them to the hilt Just look at all their weaponry. It is Chinese.

    I know, I know, everything in America is made in China as well.
  7. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    20 Sep '17 01:33
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    Is that what you'd recommend?
    Not really, I said I don't have a clue, just my ham handed stab at humor
  8. 20 Sep '17 01:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey to Mchill
    Russia and China? They are the allies of the Rocket Man.

    In fact, China has armed them to the hilt Just look at all their weaponry. It is Chinese.

    I know, I know, everything in America is made in China as well.
    Ignorant Westerners here routinely spout nonsense about Asian issues.

    "In fact, China has armed them [DPRK] to the hilt Just look at ALL their weaponry. It is Chinese."
    --Whodey

    FALSE. In fact, after the Korean War, the DPRK received more arms from the USSR than China.
    (The Soviet arms tended to be more advanced than the Chinese arms.)
    In addition, the DPRK has developed an considerable arms industry, which mainly
    produces variants or upgrades of Soviet or Chinese arms.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army

    The air force's most advanced fighters are Soviet MiG-29s and MiG-23s, which China never used.
    The DPRK builds tanks that are similar to the Soviet T-72 or based upon the T-62.
    China never has used T-72 or T-62 tanks.

    The DPRK's arms of Chinese origin tend to be among the its older and less advanced.
    That shows that China has exported few, if any, arms to the DPRK in recent years.
  9. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    20 Sep '17 01:45
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Ignorant Westerners here routinely spout nonsense about Asian issues.

    "In fact, China has armed them [DPRK] to the hilt Just look at all their weaponry. It is Chinese."
    --Whodey

    FALSE. In fact, after the Korean War, the DPRK received more arms from the USSR than China.
    In addition, the DPRK has developed an considerable arms industry, which ma ...[text shortened]... ess advanced.
    That shows that China has exported few, if any, arms to the DPRK in recent years.
    Ahhh. I see Duchess has returned, along with her special brand love, understanding, and goodwill, towards all.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    20 Sep '17 01:49
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    I am surprised at the subdued reaction so far to Trump's ground breaking threat; perhaps all the commentators I anticipate are in a state of shock or denial. Ground breaking in its apparent reversal of long standing U.S. announced policy of "No first strike."
    Ground breaking is the simple utterance of such a threat.
    I'm looking for a plausible rationale ...[text shortened]... se, I'm not suggesting that the rationale obtains.
    I'm at a loss and looking for some comments.
    It's just sabre rattling. Nothing to worry about.
  11. 20 Sep '17 01:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I don't mind admitting I'm at a total loss on how to solve the N Korea issue, short of America, Russia, and China simultaneously attacking this little toilet bug (with the bad haircut) and installing a government run by Dalai Lama disciples.
    _The CIA's Secret War in Tibet_ by Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison

    There was an undeclared secret war between the USA and China over Tibet.
    For many years, the USA and India financed, trained, armed, supplied, and often led
    Tibetans to fight a guerrilla war against China's PLA and its local allies in Tibet.
    Tibetans were trained at camps in the Rocky Mountains (similar to their homeland's terrain).
    Some American officers commanded Tibetans inside Tibet in actions against the PLA.
    Some Americans were killed or perhaps captured inside Tibet.

    A major reason why the Tibetan guerrilla campaign lost was that it failed to gain enough popular support.
    The CIA had to warn its Tibetan recruits that, after being dropped into Tibet to fight the
    Chinese, they had to be wary about trusting Tibetans because, for various reasons,
    many of them were ready to inform on the Tibetan guerrillas to the Chinese authorities.

    According to American sources, the Dalai Lama was paid a regular salary by the CIA for years,
    which may explain why he never criticized US war crimes (even against Buddhists) in Vietnam.
    The Dalai Lama's not the apolitical pacifist saint of Western mythology.

    How would Americans feel if China or the USSR had armed (and even led) Hispanic nationalist guerrillas
    (operating from safe bases in Mexico) fighting for the secession of the Southwest from the USA?
  12. 20 Sep '17 01:52
    Originally posted by @mchill, apparently excusing Whodey's obvious falsehood
    Ahhh. I see Duchess has returned, along with her special brand love, understanding, and goodwill, towards all.
    The troll Mchill presumably prefers to believe cherished lies than to accept unwelcome facts.
  13. 20 Sep '17 02:03
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    I am surprised at the subdued reaction so far to Trump's ground breaking threat; perhaps all the commentators I anticipate are in a state of shock or denial. Ground breaking in its apparent reversal of long standing U.S. announced policy of "No first strike."
    Ground breaking is the simple utterance of such a threat.
    I'm looking for a plausible rationale ...[text shortened]... se, I'm not suggesting that the rationale obtains.
    I'm at a loss and looking for some comments.
    The historical ignorance here is beyond description.

    "Ground breaking in its apparent reversal of long standing U.S. announced policy of "No first strike.""
    --Stevemcc

    WRONG. In fact, the USA has *not* had a declared policy of 'no nuclear first strike'.

    "The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves
    the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the
    use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review,
    released April 6, 2010."
    --Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

    "NATO [including the USA] has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy,[2]
    arguing that pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option, in order to have a credible
    deterrent that could compensate for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority
    enjoyed by the Soviet Army in the Eurasian land mass."

    In contrast to the USA,
    "China declared its NFU [no first use] policy in 1964, and has since maintained this policy."
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Sep '17 02:26
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The historical ignorance here is beyond description.

    "Ground breaking in its apparent reversal of long standing U.S. announced policy of "No first strike.""
    --Stevemcc

    WRONG. In fact, the USA has *not* had a declared policy of 'no nuclear first strike'.

    "The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves
    t ...[text shortened]... ,
    "China declared its NFU [no first use] policy in 1964, and has since maintained this policy."
    To be fair, Trump's comments, while extraordinarily bellicose and inappropriate, did not explicitly say the US would "first strike" with nuclear weapons:

    “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,”

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-trump/if-threatened-u-s-will-totally-destroy-north-korea-trump-vows-idUSKCN1BU0B3

    Duchess is correct that the US has never declared a "no first strike" policy.
  15. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    20 Sep '17 03:33
    It's not quite true there have been no reactions.
    Venezuela, Iran, Sweden, France, Bolivia... have reacted.
    They're not very positive about his speech. But then again, it was moronic, nasty and self-centred.

    Oh. Israel has reacted as well. They thought it was a good speech.
    Who'd a thunk it?