In the dim corner, we have Trump! In the dictator corner, we have Kim! Or is that mixed up?

[TheClaws]

....aand we're expecting a dirty, unfair fight.

Old thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3015872-Trump-yes-we-have-no-Steve-Bannon

At the UN,

Haley: Kim Jong Un 'begging for war'

Trump is asked if he'll attack NK: "We'll see"

edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/haley-north-korea-united-nations/index.html

We're doomed. Doomed, I tell you.

I can't help but feel that Russia is gaming here.

Rogue WH Snr Advisor‏ @RogueSNRadvisor 11h11 hours ago
More
Trump never meant for the $1 million donation to Houston "to be taken literally." Told staff "the thought is what matters, not the money."

Gaming in that they're goading Trump?

Yep. (Except that I don't think 45 is 'in control' any longer.)

It looks like Russia was feeling left out, rather.
Somehow they are benefiting from all the mess.

But surely the generals wouldn't be drawn into such games? Although I read (and it may have been on the previous link) about the sloppiness of MAttis' language and the possible dangerous consequences of that. Will try to dig it out.

What has China said? Officially of course.

Thanks, Pain.

Steve Herman‏Verified account
@W7VOA
SecDef Mattis says any major threat to US or its allies would be met with a “massive” military response that would be “overwhelming.”

Ankit Panda‏Verified account @nktpnd

Ankit Panda Retweeted Steve Herman
Threat or attack? Attack (nuclear use, specifically) is standard US line on assuring retaliation. Threat is in "fire and fury" territory.

Clip of Mattis here. He does say "threat."

twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/904424412430131200

.@NarangVipin and I addressed this in our @WarOnTheRocks article on Trumps "fire and fury" comments.
warontherocks.com/2017/08/war-of-the-words-north-korea-trump-and-strategic-stability/

First, it bears stating that it’s not unusual in itself for U.S. officials to threaten nuclear retaliation against North Korea. In previous administrations, officials have often threatened an “effective and overwhelming” U.S. military response — but only in response to North Korea’s use of nuclear weapons. This point is critical because the United States has never overtly threatened first use against North Korea. Previous statements were meant to reiterate retaliatory intent, in order to reassure Seoul and Tokyo that they will be protected under Washington’s nuclear umbrella. Although American nuclear doctrine has always left open the possibility of nuclear first use, it is extremely rare for officials — let alone the president — to openly threaten or hint at being the first to launch a nuclear attack. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis attempted to set the record straight on the conditions for retaliation by releasing a statement noting the “unquestionable commitment” of the United States to “defend ourselves from an attack.” North Korea has long known that the condition for facing ostensible nuclear “fire and fury” has been that it uses nuclear weapons first. Trump’s remarks on Tuesday suggested that this reality has changed.

Mattis' remark is subtler than "fire and fury" of course, but may have the same effect of hinting at US nuclear first-use. Destabilizing.

The rest of Mattis' statement also may stoke North Korean insecurity.

Vipin Narang‏
@NarangVipin
Vipin Narang Retweeted Robert Burns
Not helpful. Putting pressure on a small, new nuclear arsenal is the surest way to see it used. Crisis instability. @nktpnd

Ankit Panda‏Verified account @nktpnd

I'm willing to give Mattis the benefit of the doubt on this screw-up, but now is seriously not the time for mistakes like this.

Hi all thanks for keeping these threads going.

You have to remember that he's a soldier, Pain.

A separate thread by someone who doesn't take issue with Mattis' language

The biggest challenge North Korea's recent nuclear & missile moves pose is alliance reassurance not deterrence. Let me explain. 1/
Prior to North Korea's development of an ICBM, potentially with a city-busting warhead, extended deterrence was not a major challenge. 2/
If NK attacked South Korea (ROK) or Japan, the US could escalate all the way up to nuclear war without risks to the US homeland. 3/
That not only made extended deterrence (i.e., preventing a North Korean attack on US allies) easier, but crucially… 4/
...the relative invulnerability of the US homeland reassured anxious allies we would indeed come to their defense if an attack happened. 5/
Reassurance, in turn, reduced incentives for the ROK & Japan to seek their own nukes or accelerate a destabilizing arms race in E Asia. 6/
But if North Korea completes an ICBM with a deliverable nuclear warhead, it changes things by putting the US homeland at risk. 7/
During the Cold War, the extended deterrence/reassurance question was whether the US would be willing to trade “Boston for Berlin.” 8/
Now the project of a nuclear-armed North Korean ICBM creates a "San Francisco for Seoul" problem that must be overcome. 9/
This will require a clear "declaratory policy" specifying the nature of US retaliatory commitments in the event an ally is attacked. 10/
Mattis's comments today provide a good example of careful.
Trump's "fire & fury, "locked & loaded," & other comments hinting at preventive war? Not so much.
Extended deterrence is also helped by US "tripwire" forces in ROK, perhaps buttressed by other deployments, & careful nuclear signaling. 13/
Because tens of thousands of US troops are in South Korea, if Kim Jong-Un launches a big war, it will kill inevitably kill Americans. &…14/
…in the event of such an attack, US forces can dominate escalation all the way up to & across the nuke threshold, even with a NK ICBM. 15/
Kim Jong-Un knows all this. And, even though he is a mass murderer, he wants to survive. So he can be deterred. 16/
www.economist.com/news/leaders/21725768-there-are-no-good-options-curb-kim-jong-un-blundering-war-would-be-worst-how

US theatre & national missile defenses, if effective, can also help ext det by creating doubt in NK that the US homeland is vulnerable. 17/
So, I'm less concerned about the deterrence challenges & more worried about alliance management & reassurance. Why? 18/
Because even though steps to bolster ext deterrence theoretically help reassure the ROK&Japan, a lot of reassurance comes down to trust. 19/
Our allies have to believe we would trade San Francisco for Seoul or Toledo for Tokyo if push comes to shove. 20/
Yet instead of reassuring our democratic allies in East Asia, Trump has done the opposite. 21/
Trump's preventive war bluster sends the signal that we'd rather have a war now because it will primarily kill Asians, not Americans. 22/
Indeed, Trump reportedly told Lindsay Graham, "if thousands die, they’re going to die over there," not here.
www.vox.com/world/2017/8/1/16075198/trump-lindsey-graham-north-korea-war

Meanwhile Trump compounds distrust problems by tweeting before consulting, labeling Seoul "appeasers," &...24/
...by threatening to rip up the US-South Korean trade agreement to play to his base. www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/world/asia/us-south-korea-trade.html?mcubz=1 … 25/

Undermining alliance solidarity at this moment is dumb & dangerous. It emboldens Pyongyang, increases the risk of NK miscalculation, &...26/
...potentially incentivizes the ROK & Japan to seek their own independent nuclear arsenals. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2017-09-01/caught-middle … 27/

& remember that candidate Trump actually said ROK & Japanese nukes would be a good thing. So there's that. www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/world/asia/donald-trump-arms-race.html?mcubz=1 … 28/

So, Trump needs to stop attacking US allies& tweeting before meeting or talking with them. (I know, dream on.) 29/
Trump also needs to stop talking about preventive war. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2017-08-22/take-preventive-war-north-korea-table?cid=int-lea&pgtype=hpg … 30/

& the Admin needs to speak w/one voice before confusion splits US from its allies, produces a war, or both. www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/trump-north-korea.html?emc=eta1&_r=0 … 31/31

....speak w/one voice....??

Pain - who is the author (twitter handle) for that long thread you just posted?

"Opinion polls show South Koreans have one of the lowest rates of regard for Trump in the world and they don't consider him to be a reasonable person," Straub said. "In fact, they worry he's kind of nuts, but they still want the alliance."

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/asia_pacific/in-latest-test-north-korea-detonates-its-most-powerful-nuclear-device-yet/2017/09/03/4c5202ea-90b4-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html

Sorry bad it got chopped off

Colin KahlVerified account
@ColinKahl
Georgetown Prof. Former Dep Asst to President Obama & Nat Sec Advisor to Vice President Biden; former DASD Middle East. Husband. Father. Music junkie.

cozie that's the problem isn't it? As long as Trump's in charge, nominally or otherwise, there will never be a united message because he just reacts rather than deliberately taking a considered path of action.

I have just a suspicion that they're not talking to him any more.

Thanks Pain - someone with credibility in discussing those issues then. Depressing reading, eh?

I have just a suspicion that they're not talking to him any more.

That is the risk, though, isn't it? Trump becomes an irrelevance, people work behind the scenes to get things done & don't bother briefing him, because stuff gets done, but he also becomes less and less informed and more paranoid/dangerous.

Thanks for new thread, I'm late to this one. Off to catch up.

Also, it's like those people who are shit at their job or just plain lazy and don't realise that their colleagues are carrying them/cleaning up the trail of destruction they leave in their wake. If they aren't confronted with it on a regular basis, they don't realise how bad they are & arrive at the realisation in they are in the wrong job and should resign/move on sooner rather than later.

Plus, Trump will get the credit for anything done well making people think he is not doing so bad after all when really he is getting worse

There is .....some talk that he's becoming restive with Kelly's new regime.