The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

Special rights and privileges are entirely justified when the recipient group has a documented history of being persecuted, and when that persecution has become institutionalized and entrenched in culture - which isn't just going to change over night. When that happens, the government needs to step in to try to protect the persecuted group. Obviously though, eradicating the causes of the perceptions that so often lead to racism or sexism or whatever else can be extremely difficult - I mean how do you completely eradicate poverty, or prevent movements like White Flight, or Good School Flight? This is why Affirmative Action and those other special rights and privileges are still necessary - until the American culture itself changes and they're no longer necessary, we really do need them.

[Sean]

Okay, the atmosphere in this topic is getting really crap and unpleasant and Imma put my foot down here; as this is a debate topic, multiple viewpoints are allowed to be discussed, but I am NOT gonna let this become a heated snark-contest where people's ability to debate reasonably and like actual fucking adults disintegrates into dust. Human emotions enter debates all the time; this is a fact of life, because none of us exist in a vaccuum where we remain totally unaffected by everything. I get it. But a seldom-used advantage of online discussions is that you can take a break and cool your head if need be. A bunch of these recent posts I'm seeing aren't even real, earnest attempts at debating a viewpoint; people are just getting mad at each other and it sours the environment. This isn't the kind of discussion we want to foster at all here.

This goes for everyone involved, not just one person btw. Just cool all your jets, please. If you can't respond to someone's post with reasonable discussion and without resorting to borderline insults and comments that pull attention away from the main points, take some time off so you can figure out a more level-headed response later. Trust me, you'll feel better about it rather than saying all the knee-jerk thoughts that pop up into your head. And I'm saying this as someone with prior personal experience in these exact types of heated arguments, myself.

[Tani Coyote]

On 5/22/2016 at 1:31 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Because that comes with the assumption that all minorities apparently need this assistance in the first place. Nevermind the condescending racism that you're supporting - that flat out ignores that:

1. You're applying collectivist reasoning to an individual problem: not all students that are in minority groups need to be coddled in order to have the same kind of success a white student has.

2. You're conflating poverty with racial ethnicity, which is stupid. This ignores, for instance, that some racial minorities, such as Asian Americans actually earn as much if not MORE than whites. And hey, it's not like there's no such thing as rich black people or hispanics, right?

What you're advocating creates the situation where an entitled rich black student can go to college, and get assistance that would be denied to a poor white student on the pure basis of race. There is no "doublethink" here, just "newspeak": "black" means "poor" now.

Of course there are wealthy minority people. Our President is one of them, that's obvious enough. I also said "a lot of minority individuals." The term "a lot" implies that there will definitely be exceptions, possibly many, as there are.

It doesn't change the fact that the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on non-whites. You're playing the Asian trump card, but it needs to be remembered that we've been fairly savage to them historically as well, and they're only where they are because a lot of them come from cultures that highly value education... which is the biggest determinant of income (as previously mentioned). Even so, they face other forms of discrimination, but economic and police discrimination put Hispanics and blacks at the forefront because, well, those are kind of the more severe. It's the same way whites and men face discrimination in some spheres, but they generally aren't focused on because they enjoy socioeconomic privilege to such an extent it makes their disadvantages seem minor in comparison.

As for affirmative action specifically, let me be blunt. I don't agree with the principle of race being the determinant of admission. I hate the idea that because I am white, I will passed over for a non-white person. At the same time, however, the evidence is clear: those in power have racist minds, and will choose whites disproportionately. Affirmative action is the half-assed solution to this issue, by forcing administrators to admit non-whites in spite of their prejudices. Yes, it sucks to have to infringe on the free market and all that good stuff, but the reluctance of power brokers to include minorities in their organizations is market failure at its finest. Special mention goes to statistical discrimination, which is a purely risk-based analysis of the situation that ignores the wealth of talent individual minority applicants could offer.

My main concern is affirmative action is not really opening doors, so much as giving non-whites access to an obstacle course that they may not have been trained for. Even if every single minority student admitted comes from a wealthy, well-educated background, now we have another issue: class. The poor members of that group are not being helped any, nor are poor whites in many cases. The schools in poorer regions are objectively garbage for the most part, which means those living there are poorly prepared to move forward with education.

Personally what I always found hilarious is that as "liberal" as higher education is, it's so staunchly opposed to distance education. Distance education would be the biggest breakthrough in equal opportunity in education, because a student would be able to attend regardless of location or financial status. I would not be surprised if there's more than a few Einsteins hidden among the ghettos and rural communities who never shine due to lack of funds and ease of travel.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

11 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Think about the long term ramifications to what you're proposing, please. We lend all this assistance to blacks, and make it easier for blacks to succeed than whites. What happens to those privileges when blacks achieve parity with whites? Do they just, I don't know, go away? What happens to them then?

Felt the need to step in for this part, but considering how much of history and politics' ugliest sides have generally been about either one group (between two or more countries, or between two or more demographics) trying to screw over the other to hog everything for themselves or the other trying to fight back to not get screwed over, it might at the very least be something we'll barely notice we needed in the future while still existing as a safeguard - and as incredibly bizarre as this sounds, it might even be used to protect whites should the same thing happen in reverse, think about that.

Patticus already gave that answer, but more in detail, when everyone's equal and people genuinely acknowledge and keep it that way, they become less necessary. Only reason we have them in the first place is because centuries of resource hogging made it necessary for other groups to need something to catch up. That said, I doubt it will go away, because in the event that happens, one group will try to seize any advantage they can get and repeat history.

[Tani Coyote]

20 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

I thought we were all in agreement that this is absolute bullcrap

Not sure about the store part, but the federal investigation concluded that Wilson's story was accurate in that he shot Brown in self-defense.

And the federal government leans towards minorities, at least under Democratic leaders. It looks like Brown was a bad apple and I can see why most of the police brutality discussion has miraculously forgotten how avidly they were fighting for him not too long ago.

That of course doesn't change the fact there are plenty of other issues revealed by the case's events, but as for the case itself, Wilson killed him in self-defense.

22 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Yes, I am arguing that the collective United States of America as a whole doesn't oppress black people. How is this fucking hard to understand?

Northern whites were very often just as much racist as Southern whites in American history. The key difference is northerners relied on private mechanisms over public, which is why you don't see much of a Northern Jim Crow.

Anyway, the point I'm getting at here is the legal code is only one way racism can manifest.

Even with similar resumes, blacks get far less callbacks than whites. A white ex-con has a higher chance of being hired than an innocent black person. Car dealers routinely offer lower rates to white buyers, even if black buyers offer to pay cash. 25% of whites want no blacks in their neighborhoods, and most don't want a neighborhood that is more than 20% black or so, even if the neighborhood has low crime, good schools, etc. Black buyers are far more often told there are no homes available in a neighborhood (even if a white caller had just inquired and was told there were), and black buyers are far more likely to be recommended another neighborhood. Blacks live in less valuable homes compared to their white peers of similar income. Black students are far more likely to be deemed special needs, and far more likely to be expelled for the same misbehavior. Black men receive harsher sentences than white men with comparable criminal records. The list goes on here.

There's a lot more going on here than the "self-inflicted problems" angle that you were discussing with drugs, pregnancy, crime, etc.

Here, let's try an intersectional experiment. You're a man, yes? Certainly you are aware of how much harsher you will be treated in the courts. How about if you're a victim of domestic abuse, you'll find a lot of those support networks drying up? What about the fact there's enormous shame at the idea of even coming forward about being a victim of said abuse? What about the expectation that you will provide for your family rather than your wife? The expectation that you will be tough? The fact you will have difficulty showing another man affection without it being seen as "gay?"

You can see there's a lot of unfair pressures men face by merit of being men. Is it that unreasonable that non-whites would face the same, particularly if they're black?

America values individualism, and so we find it hard to believe that in 2016 we are still struggling with a variety of prejudice and discrimination; the idea of discrimination is hostile to our very ideals of controlling our own destiny. But the fact is, we are as much molded by our society as our own choices. We are all caught up in an interlocking system of unearned or undue advantages and disadvantages.

[shdowhunt60]

On 5/23/2016 at 5:13 PM, Sean said:

Okay, the atmosphere in this topic is getting really crap and unpleasant and Imma put my foot down here; as this is a debate topic, multiple viewpoints are allowed to be discussed, but I am NOT gonna let this become a heated snark-contest where people's ability to debate reasonably and like actual fucking adults disintegrates into dust. Human emotions enter debates all the time; this is a fact of life, because none of us exist in a vaccuum where we remain totally unaffected by everything. I get it. But a seldom-used advantage of online discussions is that you can take a break and cool your head if need be. A bunch of these recent posts I'm seeing aren't even real, earnest attempts at debating a viewpoint; people are just getting mad at each other and it sours the environment. This isn't the kind of discussion we want to foster at all here.

This goes for everyone involved, not just one person btw. Just cool all your jets, please. If you can't respond to someone's post with reasonable discussion and without resorting to borderline insults and comments that pull attention away from the main points, take some time off so you can figure out a more level-headed response later. Trust me, you'll feel better about it rather than saying all the knee-jerk thoughts that pop up into your head. And I'm saying this as someone with prior personal experience in these exact types of heated arguments, myself.

Right. And I'll formally apologize for my behavior. Despite my attitude, I really do actually respect a lot of the people here. I just find myself getting pissed every time I enter this thread, and I don't know why I bother in the first place, because I never accomplish anything raging against a community of people who clearly don't share the same sort of beliefs as I do. If I ever feel like I can approach the matters civilly, then I will. In the meantime, I bow out.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-agree-debate-n580641

Clinton: "Screw you Bernie I already won this election I'm gonna just go strut to victory in California, forget my earlier promise to debate you."

Sanders: "Hey Donald, you wanna have a debate?"

Trump: "Sure Bernie, I'm the presumptive nominee of my Party so I'm a hell of a lot more important of an opponent than Hillary anyway."

Clinton: "Oh shi-"

This is a hilarious backfire, and I really hope this debate comes to fruition. It might just upset the contest since it means more working collar Democrats will go for Trump over Hillary, or Bernie will become far more visible than Clinton just in time to take California and knock her off her high horse.

[Patticus]

My worry is that it'll be Trump's ideal opportunity to steal more of the Bernie-or-bust Democrats away from the blues and make the election closer run thing that it should be. At this stage though, Hillary could lose every delegate going forward and still win the nomination comfortably - Bernie's aim is assuredly now influencing the party platform, which is already starting.

John Oliver had an interesting piece the other day, discussing the primary process of both parties, and highlighting why both processes need to be overhauled from root to branch. It's an interesting watch, and gives some detail on why Bernie supporters feel aggrieved over the Nevada convention - they're not just butt hurt because he ended up losing.

 

[Tani Coyote]

If Bernie wins every delegate from here on out, the DNC has no choice but to make him the nominee. Those superdelegates flaunt their independence, but they know damned well not picking the popular choice will alienate the public. They were backing Hillary over Obama, but happily dumped her when Obama became the more popular choice. But hey, them picking the candidate with fewer pledged delegates would mean they are utter hypocrites, since they whined incessantly about Bush stealing the 2000 election via the Electoral College.

My main hope is Bernie's able to take enough votes in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to deny Hillary the number of votes she needs for the media to start foaming at the mouth about how she's "won" even though superdelegates can change their vote. Nothing has pissed me off more than how frequently media outlets gloss over the superdelegates' status in favor of making her lead look massive, when it's really quite fragile.

I don't know how he would be able to pick up California to beat her, but she's not as invincible as she thinks. All it takes is one screwup - which this choice not to debate Bernie might just be - and he can snatch the victory from her. He needs to grab 64.7% of the remaining delegates to beat her, though, so I pray to God he's got some sort of radical plan to capture California.

I'm frankly surprised he hasn't announced a surprise Californian or Hispanic running mate. I think that might be one of his best strategies to shore up his support among voters. In the case of a Hispanic running mate, that would probably help considerably given the other Party's nominee is a crazed xenophobe that makes any conservative immigration ideas on Bernie's part seem rather benign.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/state-department-report-j_b_10160816.html

Annnnnd the plot thickens!

Basically the State Department's report says yes, Clinton broke the law and there's good grounds to indict her.

Doesn't matter if the e-mail thing is "old news," the fact is it's still true she broke the law and should be punished as such.

A lot of folks are noting how coincidental it is this report comes out after her numbers versus Trump started to slip.

[Dizcrybe]

On 5/27/2016 at 7:58 AM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I don't know how he would be able to pick up California to beat her, but she's not as invincible as she thinks. All it takes is one screwup - which this choice not to debate Bernie might just be - and he can snatch the victory from her. He needs to grab 64.7% of the remaining delegates to beat her, though, so I pray to God he's got some sort of radical plan to capture California.

Sanders hype is pretty dead now. I doubt he has any change of becoming the nominee.

[Patticus]

8 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Sanders hype is pretty dead now. I doubt he has any change of becoming the nominee.

He knows that his nominee chances are through, but his hype hasn't gone, and he sees that there is still a very good opportunity for him to win a few more delegates (even if Hillary wins more) and use them at the convention to influence Democratic party platform.

It may not seem like much of a consolation prize, but just such an event at the 1948 Democratic convention is credited with beginning the process of turning the Democrats from being the party of the KKK into being the party of Obama. I'd like to think similar processes of coming to terms with the inevitability and economic sensibility of single payer and universal healthcare are already beginning to take effect, and codifying it in a party platform for the first time would be a huge milestone on that road.

[Tani Coyote]

His nominee chance is only through if you are a member of the media and count superdelegates as the alpha and omega.

He could still grab the nomination, but he'd have to do something to capture California in particular as well as the remaining states with a good margin. Looks like he gave up in that regard though, which is disappointing. 65%, while high, is far from impossible, especially given a lot of states have had similar margins already. Never mind a last minute Trump debate plus Hillary's confirmation for illegal behavior, if used right, would have given him ground. I don't care if people are tired of the "damned e-mails," the fact the very Department she staffed just about said, "Yep, what she did is illegal" should count for something.

He is going to be the most powerful Democrat apart from Clinton in the aftermath of this, though. That he can command so many voters is going to probably shift the Democratic Party leftward in order to try and keep those votes in general elections. Hopefully he's able to get some more left-wing leaders elected as well, because let's face it: he's 74 years old. He's only going to be around for so much longer, and hopefully he can leave a lasting mark on the Democratic Party. Hopefully he's motivated a lot of younger people to try for public office rather than simply voting.

Compare the swarms of Republicans who suddenly came out in favor of gay marriage after the ruling last year. There was probably a good chunk of leaders in the GOP who were at least somewhat warm to the idea, but didn't speak out in fear of alienating anyone. In much the same way, the fact Bernie can carry such high numbers indicates that his Social Democratic ideas aren't fringe ideas anymore. We saw a similar thing after the Loving decision a few decades ago; suddenly just about everyone was all "oh yeah interracial marriage is okay" when they never spoke up before. Silent majorities are a great tragedy in democratic systems.

Never mind the fact a lot of Democrats are only backing Hillary because they feel she has better chances. Very few people seem to actually like her, as opposed to preferring her against Trump.

[caseykz]

North Korea likes Trump. Something is seriously wrong there. 

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/north-korea-says-trump-is/2835272.html?cid=FBcna

From an outsider, whoever you elect, just, don't embarrass yourselves. 

[Tani Coyote]

Reminds me of how in the runup to the 2008 election, Sean Hannity and the other talkshow hosts started using the argument of "Which leader do you think terrorists would want more in power - McCain or Obama?!?!" And then it turned out to be delicious fearmongering (not that I expect anything more of right-wing leaders), as there have been no huge Islamist terrorist attacks on US soil during Obama's term (not counting San Bernardino because if we're scared about Islamist mass shootings, we'd be hypocrites to not look into the much larger amount of non-Islamist mass shootings).

Of course they're praising him, because his desire to pull back from the South gives North Korea a lot more leverage. They feel they're entitled to have a multi-million man Army and that it's "aggressive" to have sizable troops in the South as well. Let's make a deal with NK - we'll cut back troops for every amount they cut back proportionally. Let's do the "trust but verify" method that worked with Reagan and Gorbachev. Oh, but NK is run by a bunch of modern Nazis, so I don't think that's going to happen. We have President Obama, not President Chamberlain.

This is like Russia claiming NATO expansion is a threat to it, when NATO can only be a threat if you're, I don't know, planning a war of aggression? Hmm.

We're not some monolithic block. France had our backs in Afghanistan because it was seen as a defensive war, whereas they refused to help in Iraq due to any proof of a threat to NATO.

[Hyp3hat]

They probably like him for the same reason Russia likes him - they see him as an insecure, vain, easy mark. A President who feels that he can 'make deals' with North Korea and somehow not get taken for a ride by literal dictators who are probably negotiating internal politics that would make Machiavelli cry every day to avoid getting executed by mortar rounds is NK's dream. 

And more importantly....

WHY? Why has Trump brought up North Korea, of all things? How is this a pressing international issue that he feels his 'business acumen' can solve? Why would anyone give North Korea what they want? Does he somehow wonder why NK is shunned by the international community? It beggars belief.

[Tani Coyote]

8 hours ago, Hyp3hat said:

They probably like him for the same reason Russia likes him - they see him as an insecure, vain, easy mark. A President who feels that he can 'make deals' with North Korea and somehow not get taken for a ride by literal dictators who are probably negotiating internal politics that would make Machiavelli cry every day to avoid getting executed by mortar rounds is NK's dream. 

Never mind he's easily walked over. Any President (regardless of Party) with an interest in pulling back troops is going to be the preferred choice of nations with aggressive agendas.

Quote

And more importantly....

WHY? Why has Trump brought up North Korea, of all things? How is this a pressing international issue that he feels his 'business acumen' can solve? Why would anyone give North Korea what they want? Does he somehow wonder why NK is shunned by the international community? It beggars belief.

Probably because it's been a stalemate for close to 70 years. Breaking it would be one of the most amazing things besides ending the Palestinian conflict.

Not particularly useful to the United States in either case, but certainly impressive. The same way Reagan gets praise for reaching accords with the Soviets (and the myth that he "beat" them), even though that's more the fact Gorbachev was fairly reasonable.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Eh, what should we have to worry about the opinions of a country that can't feed it's unfortunate population anyway?

Really, aside from their nukes - which are the only people are wary of the DPRK and the reason why the South and the US put up with them - and maybe the influx of North Korean refugees (which seems more China's fear than anything), how big of a threat are they otherwise? Their equipment is so out of date it's laughable, while South Korea's military is state of the art and up-to-date. Give the South Koreans a good missile defense (and seriously, fuck whatever objections China has about it), and even without the US I doubt North Korea would have any kowtow they would desire against them.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Eh, what should we have to worry about the opinions of a country that can't feed it's unfortunate population anyway?

Really, aside from their nukes - which are the only people are wary of the DPRK and the reason why the South and the US put up with them - and maybe the influx of North Korean refugees (which seems more China's fear than anything), how big of a threat are they otherwise? Their equipment is so out of date it's laughable, while South Korea's military is state of the art and up-to-date. Give the South Koreans a good missile defense (and seriously, fuck whatever objections China has about it), and even without the US I doubt North Korea would have any kowtow they would desire against them.

The Soviet military wasn't really known for being high-tech as I recall, but it had one quality: numbers. And the willingness to take high casualties. The Europeans feared the Red Army accordingly.

In much the same way, while North Korea would face high casualties invading the South, it is so willing to sacrifice its own people that the numbers alone are a threat.

[Hyp3hat]

4 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Never mind he's easily walked over. Any President (regardless of Party) with an interest in pulling back troops is going to be the preferred choice of nations with aggressive agendas.

Probably because it's been a stalemate for close to 70 years. Breaking it would be one of the most amazing things besides ending the Palestinian conflict.

Not particularly useful to the United States in either case, but certainly impressive. The same way Reagan gets praise for reaching accords with the Soviets (and the myth that he "beat" them), even though that's more the fact Gorbachev was fairly reasonable.

Only Nixon could go to China, right?

Still, the thought of President Trump trying to solve the Korea detente is blood curdling. If you ever need a doomsday scenario for your post-apocalyptic YA novel, that's a good one to use.

[shdowhunt60]

3 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

The Soviet military wasn't really known for being high-tech as I recall, but it had one quality: numbers. And the willingness to take high casualties. The Europeans feared the Red Army accordingly.

In much the same way, while North Korea would face high casualties invading the South, it is so willing to sacrifice its own people that the numbers alone are a threat.

That's been the way for every communist regime. North Korea and the Vietcong had astronomically more casualties than we did, but at the end of the day we just lost the will to fight so they won.

[Tornado]

This is actually a fairly safe bet to win some points with people wary of the "military industrial complex" boogeyman. I don't for a moment think this is actually an attempt at policy from Trump, but let's be perfectly frank here: If the Korean War broke out again, South Korea absolutely fucking up North Korea would be more of a matter of marching than actual tactics. They have spent the past decade or so being around tenth place for GDP military spending, and spent several decades as a bonafide military dictatorship. They have conscription. They have access to almost all of the same toys as the United States, and a bunch of neat ones they designed themselves. They have an absolutely fucking massive number of reserve troops. They have one of the most potent industrial bases in the world.

 

North Korea could get crazy and lob a missile and about the only place it could reliably hit is South Korea, but even then it might not work and the 30,000 troops the US has there isn't going to effect that.

 

3 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

The Soviet military wasn't really known for being high-tech as I recall, but it had one quality: numbers. And the willingness to take high casualties. The Europeans feared the Red Army accordingly.

In much the same way, while North Korea would face high casualties invading the South, it is so willing to sacrifice its own people that the numbers alone are a threat.

The Soviet military had things, up until the mid 1980s when the Soviet military began collapsing under its own weight, that were reasonably close to whatever the United States had at the time; or (commonly) different enough in execution to the US equivalents that whatever technical inferiority might have been in place could be overcome; and the United States had most of their shit stationed on another continent to boot.

 

 

The most advanced pieces of equipment North Korea has is stuff that was hot shit before the Vietnam war ended, and they barely have any of that. Most of their stuff is shit that wasn't bleeding edge when the Vietnam War started. They have a pretty decent selection of tanks, but tanks can't do much without air superiority. They've got a large army, but so does South Korea. To get anywhere with an attack against South Korea, they would need to rely on China just like they did in 1951, and China is a dramatically different country now than it was then.

 

23 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

That's been the way for every communist regime. North Korea and the Vietcong had astronomically more casualties than we did, but at the end of the day we just lost the will to fight so they won.

That was for the United States, a country essentially lending a hand/taking charge in a completely foreign war (especially since there was still a draft to force it) of questionable relevance to people living in the United States. North Korea starting shit into a full blown shooting match is about as likely to lead to South Korea just giving up as Israel would if Iran decided they wanted to start a fight.

[caseykz]

1 hour ago, Tornado said:

This is actually a fairly safe bet to win some points with people wary of the "military industrial complex" boogeyman. I don't for a moment think this is actually an attempt at policy from Trump, but let's be perfectly frank here: If the Korean War broke out again, South Korea absolutely fucking up North Korea would be more of a matter of marching than actual tactics. They have spent the past decade or so being around tenth place for GDP military spending, and spent several decades as a bonafide military dictatorship. They have conscription. They have access to almost all of the same toys as the United States, and a bunch of neat ones they designed themselves. They have an absolutely fucking massive number of reserve troops. They have one of the most potent industrial bases in the world.

 

North Korea could get crazy and lob a missile and about the only place it could reliably hit is South Korea, but even then it might not work and the 30,000 troops the US has there isn't going to effect that.

 

The Soviet military had things, up until the mid 1980s when the Soviet military began collapsing under its own weight, that were reasonably close to whatever the United States had at the time; or (commonly) different enough in execution to the US equivalents that whatever technical inferiority might have been in place could be overcome; and the United States had most of their shit stationed on another continent to boot.

 

 

The most advanced pieces of equipment North Korea has is stuff that was hot shit before the Vietnam war ended, and they barely have any of that. Most of their stuff is shit that wasn't bleeding edge when the Vietnam War started. They have a pretty decent selection of tanks, but tanks can't do much without air superiority. They've got a large army, but so does South Korea. To get anywhere with an attack against South Korea, they would need to rely on China just like they did in 1951, and China is a dramatically different country now than it was then.

 

That was for the United States, a country essentially lending a hand/taking charge in a completely foreign war (especially since there was still a draft to force it) of questionable relevance to people living in the United States. North Korea starting shit into a full blown shooting match is about as likely to lead to South Korea just giving up as Israel would if Iran decided they wanted to start a fight.

'Questionable relevance' well, it's not supposed to be because S Korea is technically one of your biggest trading partners and basically not letting China close to those assets?

well i still wouldn't underestimate drpk like that. They're engage in autarky so no one knows full well of what's happening.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

6 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

The Soviet military wasn't really known for being high-tech as I recall, but it had one quality: numbers. And the willingness to take high casualties. The Europeans feared the Red Army accordingly.

In much the same way, while North Korea would face high casualties invading the South, it is so willing to sacrifice its own people that the numbers alone are a threat.

Except the Soviet military was still powerful and influential enough to be considered a superpower that rivaled the US during the Cold War. And I find it doubtful that they weren't high-tech considering they were the first country ever to launch an artificial satellite, which scared us into trying to one-up them to the moon. Yeah, there were things they were lagging behind in, but it wasn't so much that they couldn't find some other way to make up for it, and that's not even including their strength in numbers (which isn't that big a factor if you have the right tech to counter it, unless we're talking nukes and maybe even then).

Number of troops alone weren't the only reason Europeans feared the Red Army - they had the tech to back it up. North Korea doesn't even have that. Whatever North Korea has cooked up is something we're decades ahead of, and the only reason they're being put up with is their nukes. Otherwise, they'd be even worse off than Iraq was during the Gulf War.

[Tani Coyote]

Perhaps I made the wrong word choice. While they weren't fighting with third world weaponry, it looks like in most categories (it looks like anti-air, armor, and aircraft are the main exceptions) Soviet forces were not top of the line, despite their absolute quality. This is a natural consequence of economic realities. 

Anyway, it appears I overestimated North Korea's numbers relative the South. I remembered they had 1/4 of their population in the military at one point, so I assumed they would have an edge in numbers... but apparently not much of one.

For once in his life, it seems Trump is not an idiot, because he understands the American presence doesn't really have much of an impact in the final outcome. Sounds like we're more there to preclude Chinese intervention than anything.

Which if so, would highlight his idiocy, because he wants to get tough on China, only to make China's attempts to become the dominant East Asian power easier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-trump-would-hand-china-the-world/2016/05/31/e4d1b1f8-2771-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html

Okay, looks like indeed, he is an idiot on handling China.

18 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

That's been the way for every communist regime. North Korea and the Vietcong had astronomically more casualties than we did, but at the end of the day we just lost the will to fight so they won.

Human wave tactics have been fairly standard throughout human history, with the West moving towards less casualties only in recent decades.

As for Korea: we beat them north of the line. That was our goal. Trying to reunite Korea was just opportunism on our part, and China whooped us for it appropriately.

As Tornado explained, Vietnam really wasn't our war, so it's understandable we lost the will to fight. Plus, we fought it on the false premise of the Domino Theory (as well as the fact we needed to get involved there for France to play nice with Germany).

Which was proven false quickly, because not long after we left Vietnam, all the Communist countries were at war with each other in the same region.

It's even harder to defend Vietnam when it ultimately is no different than putting dictators in power in Latin America, given most Vietnamese people were favorable to Ho Chi Minh. Which is precisely why we broke our word to support national elections. Democracy is good... until they elect a Communist or even a Social Democrat, then hold the phone!

Though we should be careful not to criticize losing the will to fight. After all, it's part of the reason we're independent in the first place. The colonists' insurgency, followed up with great victories with the help of our European allies, broke the will of the English and brought us independence.

Never mind the idea it's necessarily a bad thing would be catastrophic for humanity, because then wars would never end. "Blood for the blood God" is not the correct approach to war, but rather "is the goal worth the losses? Do we actually have a chance of achieving our goal?"