World Affairs

[Fantozzi 4,067]

27 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

Also, war isn't likely.

I agree. Even if territorial interests are strong, interest in a long and expensive conflict are low. And one shouldn't confound Indias and Chinas leader with this guy from North Korea. Those are civilized people with a brain mainly driven by economics not by blood, sweat and patriotic marches.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

And -- while we're on the subject --

It was announced in the US media yesterday that Russia will be joining in joint military exercises with it's puppet state of Belarus.  Putin will be sending 13,000 regular troops to participate.  In addition, US satellites have detected massive stockpiles of equipment and supplies being assembled on the Russian borders with NATO.

This act could constitute a major threat to any of the eastern NATO members, or it could be a thinly disguised move to annex Belarus, or simply a tit-for-tat move to counter the joint exercises already carried out by NATO -- or -- all of the above.

With Trump backwards in the saddle, Putin might view this as the time to make a move.

[matias93 7,535]

On 1/8/2017 at 1:51 PM, Fantozzi said:

I agree. Even if territorial interests are strong, interest in a long and expensive conflict are low. And one shouldn't confound Indias and Chinas leader with this guy from North Korea. Those are civilized people with a brain mainly driven by economics not by blood, sweat and patriotic marches.

Mind you, Kim is not being entirely irrational, but just answering to a really difficult strategic situation: North Korea managed to corner itself against virtually all biggest powers in the world, so their best defense is the threat of being able to punch way over their weight, even if just once, as is enough to cause significant (and unacceptable) damage to anyone who would want to mess with them. Also, the continuous menace of a full-flegded war against virtually all the world does wonders to strenghten a nationalistic doctrine and making it to appear coherent to the local population, driving them to rationalise harsh economic conditions and an excessive military spending (any parallel to the relationship between domestic and foreign policies of certain north american imperial federation is only coincidence, of course).

5 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

And -- while we're on the subject --

It was announced in the US media yesterday that Russia will be joining in joint military exercises with it's puppet state of Belarus.  Putin will be sending 13,000 regular troops to participate.  In addition, US satellites have detected massive stockpiles of equipment and supplies being assembled on the Russian borders with NATO.

This act could constitute a major threat to any of the eastern NATO members, or it could be a thinly disguised move to annex Belarus, or simply a tit-for-tat move to counter the joint exercises already carried out by NATO -- or -- all of the above.

With Trump backwards in the saddle, Putin might view this as the time to make a move.

To me, it sounds more like a 'friendly reminder' to Lukashenko about who really rules the country and the region, as he has been somewhat distant of the official line, with all those guarrantees of 'not being a platform to agrede Ukranie'. But nothing serious, nothing more than exercises; nobody needs real bullets being shot to know that they can be shot.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Trump announces travel ban for north korea starting september 1. and urges americans to leave the country.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

9 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Trump announces travel ban for north korea starting september 1. and urges americans to leave the country.

Oh -- that's real smooth on his part.

Now the North Koreans will grab every American in the country and hold them for ransom !

[Dreadnought 8,226]

17 hours ago, matias93 said:

Also, the continuous menace of a full-flegded war against virtually all the world does wonders to strenghten a nationalistic doctrine and making it to appear coherent to the local population, driving them to rationalise harsh economic conditions and an excessive military spending.

To me, it sounds more like a 'friendly reminder' to Lukashenko about who really rules the country and the region, as he has been somewhat distant of the official line, with all those guarrantees of 'not being a platform to agrede Ukranie'. But nothing serious, nothing more than exercises; nobody needs real bullets being shot to know that they can be shot.

That strategy worked marginally well for Cuba -- it was a disaster for Venezuela.  And if Kim drops a big one on US soil -- the complete and total bloodbath on the Korean Peninsula will end badly for him.  Once he harms Seoul, his "hostage shield" will disappear.  Despite what others may think of the US, we are a reasonably peaceable folk.  But properly motivated, we will use a sledge hammer to kill a single ant.  But it remains to be seen as to what will prove to be sufficient provocation for us to act.

AND --

Don't overestimate Putin's level of prudence.  Nor should you underestimate his audacity.  The only thing swelled larger than Putin's head -- are his balls ! 

[LexusInfernus 908]

18 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

And -- while we're on the subject --

It was announced in the US media yesterday that Russia will be joining in joint military exercises with it's puppet state of Belarus.  Putin will be sending 13,000 regular troops to participate.  In addition, US satellites have detected massive stockpiles of equipment and supplies being assembled on the Russian borders with NATO.

This act could constitute a major threat to any of the eastern NATO members, or it could be a thinly disguised move to annex Belarus, or simply a tit-for-tat move to counter the joint exercises already carried out by NATO -- or -- all of the above.

With Trump backwards in the saddle, Putin might view this as the time to make a move.

Whats the point of annexing a puppet state exactly? You are already in control, so why bother with annexation. That costs money and gains you nothing you didn't already have. 

Also, stockpiling military assets near a border doesn't have to mean much. Throughout the cold war NATO had massive amounts of stockpiles near the East German border, it never meant they were about to attack East Germany. Though it is a nice way of saying 'keep of my lawn'. 

[Fantozzi 4,067]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Whats the point of annexing a puppet state exactly?

Lust.

If we really knew how many political decisions - negotiated with rational arguments - are driven by lust, we would be even more scared about future.

I always wondered what is the private motivation for Bashar al-Assad to persist to rule a destroyed country instead he could sail on a yacht and drink champaigne and dance with his wife under a starry sky.

For what all this tragedy is needed for?

The source of all tragedy is lust. Ancient drama writers knew this.

[krbe 193]

On 2017-8-3 at 5:35 PM, Dreadnought said:

But properly motivated, we will use a sledge hammer to kill a single ant.

See why it makes perfect sense for the guy to focus on nuclear weapons?

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Hungary plans to make military science a compulsory subject in school and therefore plans to build 200 new shooting galleries to educate students.

Sorry, found no english link, only on german media.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

17 hours ago, krbe said:

See why it makes perfect sense for the guy to focus on nuclear weapons?

Yes -- I see the perfect sense. 

He builds nukes and missiles, threatens S. Korea, Japan, and the US with them -- and then wonders why we killed him with the sledge hammer.  DUH !!

The smart thing would have been to realize we didn't give a rat's patoot about him or his 3d world country until he started making a lot of trouble.  We managed to get out of Korea in 1953 and I have never heard a general or politician express the least interest in invading the place.  We don't want it.

And I sincerely hope he doesn't think we are going to give him anything just to leave us alone.  We don't pay tribute or ransom.

NOBODY wants to turn N. Korea into a nuclear waste dump.  But it's clear to me he doesn't understand his options or his capabilities. 

If he shoots first -- we will shoot last.  If we are attacked, we will return fire -- and we will put an end to the careless threat he chooses to represent.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Germany: 7 weeks to go until election day.

If germany rises military spendings to 2% of GDP (as NATO/Trump claims, actually it should be 1,4% ) - which would be more than 70 billion Euro each year - germany would become a european superpower in a few years. GDP is roundabout 3600 billion Euro.

To compare: North Korea actually spends roundabout 25 Percent of their GDP on military. These are roundabout 10 billion dollars each year (estimated). GDP is 40 billion dollars (estimated). Russia spends ~ 60 billion euros a year on military. 

So germany would become no. 4 in the world on military spendings behind US, China and Saudia Arabia.

 

(Sources: Wikipedia)

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@Fantozzi

I, personally, don't see the need for Germany to spend all that money on the military -- Trump just doesn't understand the real concept behind NATO.  AND -- NATO is just a convenient target for him to attack.  Trump's base support is mostly among the less educated voters (I call them Rednecks) that have never been to Europe and dislike anything "foreign".  These Rednecks like the idea that the US does not need allies in Europe....you know....we'll handle everything all by ourselves. (Ha!)  They slept through history class and don't understand that what happens in Europe certainly effects the rest of the globe 

The Russians would be the more logical target -- but he has banking interests in Moscow (we will see the proof of that soon enough), and one shouldn't attack the person he's trying to borrow money from.  (American banks won't touch him anymore.) 

However, Ms. Merkel might be wise to build up her military to some extent.  If she can't count on the US for help (Trump's an idiot, remember?) -- then she needs to be strong enough to impress Putin.  She's smart enough, and strong enough as a leader -- but Putin only understands military force and would be terrified by an expanded Bundeswehr.  He'll be much easier to deal with that way.

[krbe 193]

20 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

The smart thing would have been to realize we didn't give a rat's patoot about him or his 3d world country until he started making a lot of trouble.  We managed to get out of Korea in 1953 and I have never heard a general or politician express the least interest in invading the place.  We don't want it.

Bill Clinton looked into attacking North Korea but decided against it when the generals told him about the mass casualties amongst American troops if attempted.

Ensuring a first strike capability against targets on American soil is the only way to ensure that NK can counter the US threat. I'm glad it's Donald Trump and not me that have to whip out the calculator and crunch the numbers on how many deaths are acceptable. 

I'm also glad it's Mr Trump that's issuing the threats. 

[Fantozzi 4,067]

14 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

However, Ms. Merkel might be wise to build up her military to some extent.

I feel unshure. We tend to think the actual state remains forever. Who knows, who will be in charge after Merkel and rule over the fourth powerfull military in the world. Thank God we have no nuclear weapons except those under US control.

Those who founded the federal republic after WWII would be scared how things turned. With leaving the EU the United Kingdom strengthens Germany's influence, it's like loosing a counterpart - while Helmut Kohl and his predecessors had a very different idear of the EU, not Germany to rule Europe but Europe to pledge Germany for alliance. 

To me EU sometimes seems like a hollow tree. While everyone tries to get the best out of the union for their economy, on the inside, as a community of values, it's rotten. Many members, like the gouvernements in Poland and Hungary, don't give a damn to the idear of the EU being a caring society. Those countries changed since they became members of EU.

Now we look on germany and we judge things by looking on the actual gouvernement. But forces - like in US saying 'america first', like in Hungary saying 'Hungary first' - are getting stronger in Germany too. Like in many european countries.

All countries east of germany regard Russia as an aggressor. Poland in october will start to remove 200 memorials for russian soldiers of WWII that liberated the country from Nazis. Russia plans to react with sanctions against Poland. Poland is dependend on russian gasoline.

Those eastern countries of the EU several times in the past asked for NATO troups to be present at their borders. The border between russia and EU changes. It becomes a hot spot of cold war. With Germany becoming a strong military power and US forces withdraw from Europe it would be a question of time when german troups will take their place on the eastern borders of EU.

Things changed since the treaty of rome in 1957, when they tried to overcome national interests and make them shared interests. Today it's the opposite, they want national interests to be EU interests - and EU has become a market place where national interests are negotiated. US being a protector state for the western world makes US gouvernements thinking their national interests are the interests of the world. I don't like the idear Germany's taking the same way now.

To me that's like transforming step by step EU into a protectorate.  

[Dreadnought 8,226]

5 hours ago, krbe said:

Bill Clinton looked into attacking North Korea but decided against it when the generals told him about the mass casualties amongst American troops if attempted.

Ensuring a first strike capability against targets on American soil is the only way to ensure that NK can counter the US threat. I'm glad it's Donald Trump and not me that have to whip out the calculator and crunch the numbers on how many deaths are acceptable. 

I'm also glad it's Mr Trump that's issuing the threats. 

Where have you been -- !! -- ??

Kim issues a new threat against the US every day !!  He threatened to launch a missile strike against Guam this afternoon.  You need to stop watching that state-owned propaganda channel and check out the BBC.

EVERY President asks that question after the little jerk starts stirring up trouble.  Don't forget -- Kim is the guy that drops a few rounds on S. Korean fishing villages just to celebrate his birthday !  As for Clinton, the question was purely academic -- he wouldn't even commit troops to Bosnia.

Trump won't bother to crunch numbers -- he's as big an idiot as Kim -- and just as impulsive.  If Kim actually fires a missile at US territory -- Trump will just push the red button.  The mass casualties will be in N. Korea and -- unfortunately -- S. Korea.  But Trump does not share your tender sensibilities.

And you don't seem to understand -- THERE IS NO THREAT TO N. KOREA !!!  We don't threaten N. Korea -- unless Kim disturbs the peace.  We have allies that are his neighbors, and when he starts up with them, we get involved.  That's what allies do.  BUT -- why do you seem to think we want to invade N. Korea ?  The whole damned country isn't worth a single American life.  It's an economic disaster and half the people are brainwashed and the other half want to escape.  Why would we care enough to want to hurt them ?

Kim is the typical, megalomaniac, tin-pot dictator of a 3d world country with a starving population because he spends all the money he gets from rogue nations on nuclear weapons.  He issues these daily threats and talks big because if he ever hesitates, his own generals will do him in. 

For my part -- I think once he has perfected his nuclear systems -- he will feel protected.  And the lunatic will attack S. Korea !!

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@Fantozzi

Read your reply -- very astute -- well considered.

But it's 2am, here -- and I need some sleep.  I'll talk back tomorrow, after breakfast.

BTW -- Heidelberg is a lovely city -- one of my favorites ! 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

These are most interesting of times we live in. Pass the popcorn and turn on the news!

Late Stage Capitalism turning to early stage Armageddon brings about the most exciting stranger than fiction stories.

When North Korea is attacked, I hope it's with conventional ICBM's and nothing nuclear.

I hope Scotland and Northern Ireland rejoin the EU, even if it's by ceding from the "United" Kingdom (maybe they'll be independant, maybe they'll join the Republic of Ireland).

[krbe 193]

12 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

And you don't seem to understand -- THERE IS NO THREAT TO N. KOREA !!!  We don't threaten N. Korea -- unless Kim disturbs the peace. 

That seems like an understatement. I'd like to know what media you consume if you really believe there is 'no threat to North Korea'. Note that I don't care as to why there's a threat -- the facts on the ground support a notion that pursuing the development of nuclear weapons is a rational choice for a dictatorship whose arch enemy is the US and whose main interest is the prolonging of its life. 

If the US truly did not pose a threat to NK it would have sought to end the conflict a long time ago. They can't of course, if you've had a cursory look at the post-1953 relationship. 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@krbe

I suppose the definition of the term "threat" all depends upon which side of the Korean DMZ you sympathize with -- and, whether or not you use the term as a noun or a verb.

My "cursory" knowledge of the post-1953 relationship tells me that there will never be a "peace treaty" with N. Korea because they will never give up the single-minded goal of absorbing S. Korea. 

And, the constant "state of emergency" invented by the Kim Dynasty is their means of staying in power.  The manufactured "external threat" is an old trick -- chapter two in "The Big Book Of Dictators".  "Peace" would be his undoing.  Any friendly discourse with the South would expose his regime as the ideologically bankrupt gulag the country has become.  That's why the place is an "Orwellian" nightmare.  If left alone, it would die a long, slow death all by itself.  Unfortunately, Kim won't simply drift off into irrelevance peacefully.  Like a dog in pain, he bites at anything within reach.

The universally accepted theory (historians and defense analysts) is that a nuke allows a small country to "punch above it's weight class".  Good theory -- on paper.  But in practice, it more often leads to hostility -- an arms race -- open conflict -- and the inevitable defeat of the weaker power.  "Chicken Brinkmanship" is another old trick -- and one side or the other usually "blinks".  The problem for the moment, is that we have TWO unstable players.  Kim can't "blink" if he wants to stay alive -- and Trump refuses to "lose" (even when it comes to petty crowd sizes).  The man is so desperate for a "win" -- he may not blink, either.  Which leaves the world in an uncomfortable dilemma.

As for the US -- we are everybody's "arch enemy".  We are hated in countries where they can't even point us out on a map of the world.  We are hated if we support the status quo and hated if we don't.  We are hated by people that have never even seen an American.  We are hated if we meddle in other people's business, while the same ones cry "why didn't the US do more?".

I think we would be more than happy to withdraw our "defensively postured" troops any time S. Korea gives us the word.  It is an expense the US could do without.  And I really don't think they enjoy being stationed there  -- I didn't much care for it. 

The current "dispute" will end in one of many possible resolutions -- probably one we haven't even imagined.  But the armed standoff at the DMZ will only end when North and South are able to come to an understanding that will satisfy both parties. 

Probably not in my lifetime.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

The universally accepted theory (historians and defense analysts) is that a nuke allows a small country to "punch above it's weight class".  Good theory -- on paper.  But in practice, it more often leads to hostility -- an arms race -- open conflict -- and the inevitable defeat of the weaker power.

I'm not really sure what you mean with this, as I can't really remember any other nuclear state behaving in such an overtly hostile way; South African may have had nuclear weapons, Israel and Saudi Arabia probably have, and India and Pakistan have -- a bit back and forth with their neighbours of course, but nothing of the sort that Kim puts up. However: Ukraine used to have them, and they traded them for a Russian "guarantee". And that's what Kim sees: Placate your interested major power -- be it Russia for Ukraine, US/NATO/EU for Libya, or the US for Syria, and they will turn on you. He also lives in the shadow of Chinese statecraft, which dictates that smaller states, such as Korea, are either cordial allies to be nurtured while defending their guardian's interests, or hostile states to be subdued in any manner possible -- be it militarily, economically or diplomatically. Couple that with years of sanctions, and you have the perfect recipe for a Hitler-style bunker syndrom. Are the North Korean missiles pointed at Guam the same as the Third Reich ghost brigades when the Russians closed in on Berlin in 1945?

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

The problem for the moment, is that we have TWO unstable players.  Kim can't "blink" if he wants to stay alive -- and Trump refuses to "lose" (even when it comes to petty crowd sizes).  The man is so desperate for a "win" -- he may not blink, either.

Kim is as unstable as Kim is; that family kidnaps chefs and actors with subs off of Japanese beaches, for heaven's sake. While Mr Trump certainly seems more like a five-year old trying to rule his bedroom than a president, I do feel that we're still at that point with him as we were with Vladimir Putin shortly after the Crimea takeover, where it was alleged that Mr Putin only ruled according to one-page memos set in 18pt fonts... And look at him now, like an Obama just presiding like a dictator light over a bankruptcy estate (according to some European media outlets).

Mr Trump has taken a lot of losses as president, and he will continue to. It should just not be broadcasted. However, he might give the impression that "fire and fury" will bring a bloody end to the North Korean regime, but I doubt he'd be willing to commit a large number of dead American soldiers to make up for his Obamacare replace and repeal failures.

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

And I really don't think they enjoy being stationed there  -- I didn't much care for it. 

If you feel you can shed some light on it, I'd really like to hear more about how it is being stationed there. What you're told before/when you're there, what you're doing, how relations are with South Korea, if one feel whether it at all makes sense being there. The only thing I've seen regarding the US presence in Korea lately was when out-of-country evacuation drills started.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@krbe

Short note -- previous engagement requires my presence --

I'm not really sure what you mean with this, as I can't really remember any other nuclear state behaving in such an overtly hostile way;

You are correct -- there has been no comparable degree of hostility in the "Nuclear Age" (though Castro did attempt to get nuclear missiles fired on the US back in '62).  My reference is of a historical nature and much less modern.  This theory was employed by Admiral Von Tirpitz when he convinced Willhelm II to build a High Seas battle fleet.  A modern battle fleet on England's doorstep was supposed to make them more amenable to a friendship treaty with Germany.  History tells us that it had the opposite effect -- bringing on what was at that time the most expensive arms race in history and increasing England's anti-German sentiment one hundred fold -- ultimately leading to The Great War.

I see Kim's missiles much like Wilhelm's dreadnoughts.  Instead of producing cooperation, they have provoked much alarm and hostility.  The US has never responded well to threats and bellicose rhetoric -- and even less well when confronted with armed belligerence.  There is already some talk in the Senate of Congressional approval for a preemptive strike.  I, personally, think they are getting a bit ahead of themselves and hope for a more calculated response.  Our "Thad" anti-missile systems have enjoyed a 100% success rate during target testing so I see no need for hasty action.  Guam should remain unscathed and the exercise would provide an excellent object lesson for Kim.

However, he might give the impression that "fire and fury" will bring a bloody end to the North Korean regime, but I doubt he'd be willing to commit a large number of dead American soldiers to make up for his Obamacare replace and repeal failures.

This brings to mind a movie titled "Wag The Dog" -- in which, Presidential staffers dealing with political troubles at home hire a Hollywood producer to stage fake news and film clips depicting a foreign war.  This takes the mind of the masses off the troubles in the White House.  It is, of course, a comedy -- a bit "noir" -- but a satire, nonetheless.  Whenever "Donald" suffers political setbacks that are a bit close to home -- he suddenly seems to develop foreign policy problems.  (Usually brought on by his tweets.)  Coincidence -- ?  Maybe -- or it could be rule #3 from the Dictator's Handbook.  The Romans perfected the concept of "bread and circuses".  If you study history, you will come to believe that there is really very little under the sun that is new, or original.

Donald has not yet given serious consideration to dead soldiers.  His thoughts are dedicated to appearing "strong" -- and a "winner".  "Winning" is far more important to Trump than logical people understand.  It is an obsession -- a psychological aberration.  We see him tell lies on a daily basis that a 6 year old could easily refute -- all in an effort to be "right" and a "winner".  Psychotic -- !

BUT -- I am told by knowledgeable friends of long standing that General Matiss is an excellent man to have at the helm at this particular moment.  Intelligent, knowledgeable, and steady as a rock.  However, before we start counting body bags, it is worth taking note of the rather low casualty rates from the Second Gulf War.  Technology and advanced weaponry have changed the face of the modern battlefield.  There are many modern conventional means and strategies available to neutralize Kim's 1.2m man army and his 11,000 artillery tubes.  Blood there will be -- but much less than some think.  I know it sounds quite callous to quote statistics, but the kill rate in Iraq was eventually determined to be 12 to 1.  I do, however, fear there will be horrendous losses among the S. Korean civilian populace.  I believe Seoul will be the first target of the next war there.

As for my experience in S. Korea  -- I could write you a book, and have often thought of doing so -- but I write other things, of a less personal nature.  Besides -- whatever I have to say on the subject is truly past history and long out of date.  The S. Korea of today is a modern and prosperous country.  When I was there "M*A*S*H" was the #1 rated TV show in the US !!  That tells you how long ago that was. 

The one thing, however, that sticks in my mind was the so-called "peasant farmer".  They were nice enough people if you treated them with respect and dignity -- but they still feared anyone in authority -- even after 20 years of "peace".  It didn't matter what uniform you wore -- authority meant trouble for them.

[Odainsaker 2,135]

Amusingly, I would more readily liken Kaiser Wilhelm II to Donald Trump--a pompous, vainglorious, exhaustingly self-congratulatory bully who thought of himself as the world's greatest genius who would disruptively solve all issues by the force of his bigger personality, but who only instead managed to boorishly break the careful relations Bismarck had previously built-up for a stable Europe and who had amateurishly left Imperial Germany isolated, surrounded, and on the brink of war.  Coincidentally, I just re-watched much of "Fall of Eagles," and the parallels are too striking!

We're only six months in, and in just a few days a stupidly flippant comment to a news reporter's question has suddenly and alarmingly escalated to us outright daring North Korea to launch missiles towards Guam and for us planning to counter that with retaliatory missile shoot downs.  Surely, U.S. pre-emptive strikes on mainland China's totalitarian ally and strategic proxy will make us look powerful, will goad both nuclear-armed Beijing and nuclear-armed Pyongyang into peacefully obedient disarmament, and won't have any spiraling and unforeseen consequences...

It's like the Kaiser's blundered Morocco Crisis, only with nuclear missiles instead of gunboats and where the game plan is "fire and fury like the world has never seen."  This might have just been the anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but our nuclear weapons, like Trump's hands, are bigger and more powerful.  Of course, Kim eliminated his own close family as rivals and executes those in disfavor with anti-aircraft batteries, but Trump is such a diplomatic genius that he doesn't even need any U.S. translators when dealing alone with Vladimir Putin, so surely he can bombastically out-bluster the virulent bluster spewed by the Orwellian propagandists of North Korea and convince Kim to willingly give up his ultimate weapons.

To think that this is all because of a thoughtless answer to a reporter's question...what will happen when the real Sarajevo crisis comes?

 

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Angela Merkel plans an election battle with almost no political content and with slogans like 'for a germany with all people happy' and posters with only her smiling and an all white background (click here, if you really need to see this). Strategy is - if you don't have any clear messages you can't be attacked by the adversary.

Makes me thinking - this is the biggest issue with Mr. Trump. His staff must be afraid he is saying something or twitter something or comment something. If Trump was on Simtropolis moderators were quite busy too.

Most things would run better for him if he just could keep quiet sometimes. Most excitement is about his words not about his actions. It seems, about diplomatic speech he knows even less than me.

Another funny thing is - how the talking was about islamic world still have a medieval world view.

With Trump and Jong-un I can't help but seeing two knights in their armament, hinging down their visor, taking up their lance and shouting: "Come on, come - attack me and you'll see what you'll get in return!" What they are doing - this is as medieval as ISIS' world view. Medieval diplomacy. Mace diplomacy.

Supreme culture?  Sorry, but that's all a bad joke on human achievements. It's the medieval way to solve conflicts between men:

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

21 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

The universally accepted theory (historians and defense analysts) is that a nuke allows a small country to "punch above it's weight class".  Good theory -- on paper.  But in practice, it more often leads to hostility -- an arms race -- open conflict -- and the inevitable defeat of the weaker power. 

The theory is not actually mutually exclusive to the practice. Punching above your weight in this context just means punching above your weight in military terms. In case of a hot war, using nuclear weapons at your disposal allows you to inflict much more damage and casualties on your victim. The fact that its a suicidal move is irrelevant, you still would have done more damage to your enemy than you would have if you didn't have nukes. 

As for the practice, sorry but there is no evidence to support that claim. Only a handful of countries have nukes. The United States, Russia, China, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Of those countries, I would only classify Pakistan and North Korea as 'small' in terms of power and relative military capabilities. So far neither have had an open conflict that was the result of their nuclear ambitions and whatever hostilities they engaged in where there long before they ever got their hands on a nuke. So far, no nation with nuclear weapons has been defeated in open conflict, if North Korea falls it will be a historical first. Hell, even the amount of open conflicts involving nuclear powers are pretty minimal. Only the US and Russia have really gotten into open conflicts with other nations, all of which did not have nuclear weapons, and all of those conflicts were relatively low intensity conflicts. 

And while there have been more nations who tried to develop a nuclear weapon themselves, all of them have stopped after being persuaded by either peaceful talks or economic sanctions. Not war. 

As for North Korea being no threat, meh. Rationally they shouldn't be because self preservation demands deescalation. But this isn't a rational world and nuclear weapons are a huge risk due to their destructive power. So don't be to quick to dismiss this as a non threat. Furthermore, Kim constantly needs to one up himself to get the world to pay attention to him. He walks a very thin tightrope and it is not inconceivable that one day he misses a step....

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@Fantozzi

Yo, guy --

I sincerely hope Ms. Merkel wins the election -- she seems to be the best suited to keep the European balance in line at the moment.

Trump's own worst enemy is his anti-social emotional behavior, his big mouth, and his twitter finger.  If someone examined the first, and broke the other two -- the world would have one less "Drama Queen".

And I think it went something like this --

"The Chalice from the Palace,

Has the pellet with the poison --

And the flagon with the dragon,

Has the brew that is true."

Amazing what bits of doggerel one remembers ! 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@Odainsaker

Nice to hear from you, Odainsaker -- !!

"The Fall Of Eagles" was, indeed, very good and quite in line with the history books.  Another BBC epic, "Edward The King", fairly well portrayed Wilhelm's dysfunctional relationship with his uncle.  Though not earth shaking, it doubtless made it more difficult to resolve diplomatic arguments.

But the world has taken another turn, and the adults have changed the rules, fortunately.  And, I must admit, it's quite a clever move on their part.  The Chinese and Russians announced today that they will remain neutral in the event that the N. Koreans strike first.  In one stroke they have warned Kim that he will have to fight his battle alone if he starts a war -- while informing Trump that a preemptive strike by the US will bring them into the war on Kim's side.  Very smooth --

AND -- I was thinking the very same thing about Trump about a week ago.  Trump and Wilhelm II could have been intellectual and emotional twins!!  Maybe Wilhelm read "The Art Of The Deal" ! (Ha - Ha - Ha - Ha!!).  Neither one of them succeeded (so far) in closing a deal !  Wilhelm II may well have held the title as "The Most Ineffectual World Leader" -- until now.  And there will always be that 36% base that thinks Donald is a God -- but he will certainly rank among the worst Presidents -- if not THE worst President -- we've ever had.

God help us when the REAL crisis is at hand.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Just a note of interest --

Yesterday, four top business leaders serving on a Presidential Commission decided to quit over the Charlottesville affair.  Two others had previously quit.  Trump then dissolved the commissions to spare himself further embarrassment.

Bad publicity generated by Trump could have lateral effects -- so they simply jumped ship.

It seems Wall Street is suddenly willing to admit that Trump has absolutely no positive effects on their ability to do business in this country.

Tough "truth" for a man claiming credit every month for the good performance of the Stock Market --

The Wizard of Wall Street -- !!      

[Sabretooth78 808]

54 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

The Wizard of Wall Street -- !!      

More like the Dunce of DC.  The Charlatan of Columbia.  And it's not for a shortage of alternatives, either.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Terror attack in Barcelona - 12 people killed.