by NoOneImportant » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:35 am
Don't know much Tim, but direct confrontations between nuclear armed adversaries that lead to conflict don't last for years - although I don't know for sure, as it has never happened; one would think that once the shooting starts it gets hot quickly. That said South Korea permits the North to periodically bloody the South. The North sunk a South Korean warship in 2010 killing 46 South Korean seamen. The South apparently took the punishment, and about 10 months later the North shelled a South Korean Island killing several, and injuring many more. In September of 1983 the Soviet Union shot down KLA007, a commercial 747 airliner out of New York, killing all 269 on board including at least one congressman. President Reagan's response was a blistering condemnation of the Soviet Union - no war.
This will give a brief description of both Korean encounters.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 907420.ece
Regarding forecasting, I am much better at forecasting the past, than the future. But as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed direct confrontations between nuclear armed belligerents are best avoided, as they are difficult to control, and provide the ever present danger of unintentional uncontrolled nuclear escalation.
The difficulty is that the generations that remember the disaster, and horror that was WWII are rapidly dying, and with them the memory of what the reality of great evil looks like. Those alive under 65 - the vast majority of those in both China, and Japan - know the great evil of WWII only vicariously - they don't know first hand the horror of mass starvation - technically not true of China as Mao starved 10 of millions - , torture, mass bombings of populated areas. And while they know the words: starvation, bombing, etc... they don't know the enormity of that reality. That generational memory is being rapidly lost in both China, and Japan. See John's description of Generational Dynamics:
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... basics.htm The loss of that memory is a problem, and may lead to real conflict - the physical fact that the dispute is between an Island nation may either help or hurt. China certainly isn't going to mount a conventional amphibious invasion of Japan, so China's choices are somewhat limited - brinksmanship with an occasional loss of life. This sort of tension can go on for years with extended periods of time without any difficulties, aperiodically these times are punctuated by a serious loss of life - but not war. Or in response to some, what appears to be obscure, incident one party or the other the may elect to escalate, and blow each other up. There will be, IMO, no conflict between the two that will last more than a brief period after the use of the first nuke - while Japan has publicly eschewed the development of nukes, the only ingredient that the Japanese don't possess to obtain nukes is will - they have everything else, including enough fissile material for a thousand or more fission devices. China's nuke capacity is estimated to range from 400+ to several thousand devices, and the estimates vary wildly. And the question that everyone is asking is will the US engage China in defense of Japan?
Syria, and the Iranian nuke agreement, were I running China, would lead me to believe that the US could not be relied upon to protect anyone - including perhaps one or more American cities - IMO. Obama, like a little boy, wants to be idolized, he has no life experiences that have prepared him for the seriousness of where he finds himself - he assumes responsibility for nothing, and declares everything that goes awry to be the fault of others; all symptoms of an unrepentant narcissist, and narcissists care for no one but themselves - they come to the aid of no one. Thus the Iranian agreement is made at Israel's expense, as Iran is permitted to keep its uranium enrichment capacity. So why would anyone not believe that this will ultimately lead to clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons development? There are only two possible responses, the US is stupid, or they don't care. Disregarding stupidity, we are left with the Suadis, gulf states, Egypt, and Israel are all at risk, for America will risk nothing for any of them.
Now having said that, why would Japan believe that the US will do for Japan what it would not do for the Saudis, Egypt, the gulf states, and Israel? Even more importantly why would China believe that? Thus all of the nations in the South China Sea might be perceived to be at risk.
And we elected him twice.
Don't know much Tim, but direct confrontations between nuclear armed adversaries that lead to conflict don't last for years - although I don't know for sure, as it has never happened; one would think that once the shooting starts it gets hot quickly. That said South Korea permits the North to periodically bloody the South. The North sunk a South Korean warship in 2010 killing 46 South Korean seamen. The South apparently took the punishment, and about 10 months later the North shelled a South Korean Island killing several, and injuring many more. In September of 1983 the Soviet Union shot down KLA007, a commercial 747 airliner out of New York, killing all 269 on board including at least one congressman. President Reagan's response was a blistering condemnation of the Soviet Union - no war.
This will give a brief description of both Korean encounters.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/north-korea-shells-south-korean-island/article907420.ece
Regarding forecasting, I am much better at forecasting the past, than the future. But as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed direct confrontations between nuclear armed belligerents are best avoided, as they are difficult to control, and provide the ever present danger of unintentional uncontrolled nuclear escalation.
The difficulty is that the generations that remember the disaster, and horror that was WWII are rapidly dying, and with them the memory of what the reality of great evil looks like. Those alive under 65 - the vast majority of those in both China, and Japan - know the great evil of WWII only vicariously - they don't know first hand the horror of mass starvation - technically not true of China as Mao starved 10 of millions - , torture, mass bombings of populated areas. And while they know the words: starvation, bombing, etc... they don't know the enormity of that reality. That generational memory is being rapidly lost in both China, and Japan. See John's description of Generational Dynamics:http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ww2010.i.basics.htm The loss of that memory is a problem, and may lead to real conflict - the physical fact that the dispute is between an Island nation may either help or hurt. China certainly isn't going to mount a conventional amphibious invasion of Japan, so China's choices are somewhat limited - brinksmanship with an occasional loss of life. This sort of tension can go on for years with extended periods of time without any difficulties, aperiodically these times are punctuated by a serious loss of life - but not war. Or in response to some, what appears to be obscure, incident one party or the other the may elect to escalate, and blow each other up. There will be, IMO, no conflict between the two that will last more than a brief period after the use of the first nuke - while Japan has publicly eschewed the development of nukes, the only ingredient that the Japanese don't possess to obtain nukes is will - they have everything else, including enough fissile material for a thousand or more fission devices. China's nuke capacity is estimated to range from 400+ to several thousand devices, and the estimates vary wildly. And the question that everyone is asking is will the US engage China in defense of Japan?
Syria, and the Iranian nuke agreement, were I running China, would lead me to believe that the US could not be relied upon to protect anyone - including perhaps one or more American cities - IMO. Obama, like a little boy, wants to be idolized, he has no life experiences that have prepared him for the seriousness of where he finds himself - he assumes responsibility for nothing, and declares everything that goes awry to be the fault of others; all symptoms of an unrepentant narcissist, and narcissists care for no one but themselves - they come to the aid of no one. Thus the Iranian agreement is made at Israel's expense, as Iran is permitted to keep its uranium enrichment capacity. So why would anyone not believe that this will ultimately lead to clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons development? There are only two possible responses, the US is stupid, or they don't care. Disregarding stupidity, we are left with the Suadis, gulf states, Egypt, and Israel are all at risk, for America will risk nothing for any of them.
Now having said that, why would Japan believe that the US will do for Japan what it would not do for the Saudis, Egypt, the gulf states, and Israel? Even more importantly why would China believe that? Thus all of the nations in the South China Sea might be perceived to be at risk.
And we elected him twice.