30-Mar-13 World View -- Luxembourg opposes Cyprus template

[John]

30-Mar-13 World View -- Luxembourg opposes using Cyprus as a 'template' for euro bailouts


Russia warns that North Korean situation could spiral out of control

** 30-Mar-13 World View -- Luxembourg opposes using Cyprus as a 'template' for euro bailouts
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e130330



Contents:
Russia warns that North Korean situation could spiral out of control
Luxembourg opposes using Cyprus as a 'template' for euro bailouts
Relationship between Gulf nations and U.S. at a crossroads


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Russia, Sergei Lavrov, North Korea, strategic
patience, Japan, Pearl Harbor, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Germany, Gulf
Cooperation Council, GCC, Bashar al-Assad, Iran, Israel,
Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain

[NoOneImportant]

under: Russia warns that North Korean situation could spiral out of control

Near the end of the 3rd paragraph: warplane; should have been: warship.

[solomani]

Korea is an interesting situation. Purely from a strategic point of view the US could use it to weaken China. Since China's public stance is not to support NK in their belligerence. So its unlikely they would commit forces publicly to the defense of North Korea if they started a war. Yet the US has the power to take out and unify Korea quite quickly.

Japan's attack on Perl Harbor was a calculated risk that didn't work. Their logic was right since Vietnam proved this - send enough body bags home and the US will give up. The miscalculation came in thinking that a direct attack on the US would fall into this category. Instead it inflamed the "do or die" attitude in the US which meant, long term, Japan would be destroyed. Also an attack on the US fleet was a good idea as an opening gambit given Japan's strategic situation. It was that or surrender. Surrender was not an option for Japan at a time it seemed it held all the cards.

It's a bit myopic to judge Japan by today's standards instead of judging them by the situation at the time which was a lot murkier than hindsight would have you believe.

[at99sy]

Korea is an interesting situation. Purely from a strategic point of view the US could use it to weaken China. Since China's public stance is not to support NK in their belligerence. So its unlikely they would commit forces publicly to the defense of North Korea if they started a war. Yet the US has the power to take out and unify Korea quite quickly.

Japan's attack on Perl Harbor was a calculated risk that didn't work. Their logic was right since Vietnam proved this - send enough body bags home and the US will give up. The miscalculation came in thinking that a direct attack on the US would fall into this category. Instead it inflamed the "do or die" attitude in the US which meant, long term, Japan would be destroyed. Also an attack on the US fleet was a good idea as an opening gambit given Japan's strategic situation. It was that or surrender. Surrender was not an option for Japan at a time it seemed it held all the cards.

It's a bit myopic to judge Japan by today's standards instead of judging them by the situation at the time which was a lot murkier than hindsight would have you believe.

The US certainly has the power to destroy all of NK, however to "unify Korea quite quickly." will not happen. Never underestimate the determination of desperate
fanatical, obsessed people with only two options, (1) fight and die for your great leader or simply to (2)die for your leader because you refused to fight.

Big difference in Vietnam and Japan. Japan a6ttacked an Island paradise which happened to be a US territory and Naval Base. Killing thousands of Americans in a media described "sneak attack." Vietnam was unknown to most Americans in 1962 and a far away place that made little or no difference to the vast majority of Americans. Americans were tricked into defending their country in WWII which led to the intense "do or die" ideology of one determined to protect home and family against the evils of "insert generic enemy here" contrasted with Vietnam where Americans were tricked into stopping communism and defending democracy. Defending democracy 10,000 miles from home is quite different from defending your actual home or taking the fight to the enemy for attacking your "home."

In NK, best scenario we have the age old story of a son rising to power and being in the position that he needs to prove to the people that he can lead them and
is going to show them just how badass he is. Results will be a amped up version of Kim Jong Il beating his chest and some major military maneuvers. Nothing more to happen except announce to the people that he just won a major victory over the American pig-dogs and he will award himself several dozen shiny new medals. Worst case- he actually believes he is a bad ass and does something which cannot be undone and the balloon goes up.

Cheers!
sy

[John]

NoOneImportant - Thanks for the correction.

> It's a bit myopic to judge Japan by today's standards instead of
> judging them by the situation at the time which was a lot murkier
> than hindsight would have you believe.

I guess you don't really "get" generational theory, do you. It's
hardly "myopic" to compare the Crisis era attitudes of Japan in 1941
to those of North Korea today. In both cases, as you point out, the
assumption, based on the preceding Awakening and Unraveling eras, is
that the U.S. would not fight back, and that therefore they (Japan or
N. Korea) could threaten and selectively strike the U.S. with no
serious retaliation. The hallucinatory nature of both of these
assumptions stems from the fact that America is also in a generational
Crisis era as well, much more nationalistic than in the preceding
Awakening or Unraveling eras. It won't take very much more for a
"tipping point" to be reached, when the U.S. will retaliate -- today
as it did in 1941.

Incidentally, China is making the same hallucinatory assumptions.

[Guest]

I live in Korea, so the NK crisis affects me directly. I grew up with NK threats, and so I'm not really all that concerned with them. Why should this time any different? If Nk attacks, would the US launch immediate nuclear strikes on the North?

In the long (and perhaps short) run, South Korea will also have to square off against China. SK will need the US to survive.

What concerns me most about the US is the collapsing US economy and the massive influx of Latino immigrants who are draining the US financially and undermining wages and standards of living inside the United States. Will the US be in any condition to fight another world war? Will the massive Latino community even care what happens to the rest of the world? In my experience, third world immigrants really don't care what goes on beyond earshot.

[gerald]

I live in Korea, so the NK crisis affects me directly. I grew up with NK threats, and so I'm not really all that concerned with them. Why should this time any different? If Nk attacks, would the US launch immediate nuclear strikes on the North?

In the long (and perhaps short) run, South Korea will also have to square off against China. SK will need the US to survive.

What concerns me most about the US is the collapsing US economy and the massive influx of Latino immigrants who are draining the US financially and undermining wages and standards of living inside the United States. Will the US be in any condition to fight another world war? Will the massive Latino community even care what happens to the rest of the world? In my experience, third world immigrants really don't care what goes on beyond earshot.

Regarding the Latins in the US, that is a good question. However, having employed some, they can be more American then Americans, because they know what they ran away from and how bad it was from where they came. During WWII German Americans fought against the Nazi, the US military used the native Navajos as code communicators (using the native Navajo language for military communications because it could not be broken into English since it was not English)( The Navajos were conquered by the American settlers). Unfortunately, the Japanese Americans were not well treated, they were put into internment camps during the war ( segregated from American society, for most likely racial reasons , an attitude which has changed) but were not exterminated, unlike what the Germans or Japanese did in their interment camps.

Looking at the US military budget, and the cost of some things which have brought public notoriety, a question arrises -- what are they spending money on?

Technology can be a joker and a game changer and history has illustrated this many times.

Once a conflict begins, it's resolution can be very different for all concerned.