Trump by name......

They actually listed several causal factors. Did you read the article, or just the headline?

 

Bit of a difference in scale, no?

The kind of oppressive regimes seen in East Berlin and Romania weren't universal to communist countries. Talk to someone who lived under Tito and someone who lived under Ceaușescu and you're going to hear two very different accounts of living under Soviet communism.

Let's not forget that capitalist states supported right wing dictators with regimes just as cruel as the worst communist dictators.

 

Changing topics a bit, I'm somewhat terrified by a possible conflict in North Korea. We've now got two irrational men essentially whipping out their... rockets and comparing the size of them. Kim Jong Un seems in the more precarious position - his quest for nukes makes sense in light of Iraq, Libya, etc. - but now he's dealing with a President who's constructed his entire image out of not giving anyone else a 'win.' As Trump makes threats, Un seems to have little room to back down, meanwhile, it's in Trump's interest to continue escalating his rhetoric, both because of the Mueller probe and his own seeming personal inability to do anything else. I'm not sure where this goes, but it strikes me as a powder keg waiting for a match.

 

At this point STEVE BANNON seems like the adult in the room, when last month in a candid interview he said "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us." I don't see an exit strategy here, or the possibility of either leaders stepping back and saying "Whoa, let's cool it OK?"

 

Yeah, even during the Cold War there were back-channel communications and some sane people working to stop the insanity spiralling out of control.

I can't imagine how devastating a war between the US and North Korea would be.

 

I think it would be a very short war, with the most people dying in the shortest amount of time... Likely in history.

 

It's exactly the kind of scenario people most feared about a Trump presidency. I sincerely hope he proves his detractors wrong on this one.

I can't imagine congress approving a budget for a prolonged ground war, not after Afghanistan and Iraq, and the only other option is to obliterate the country from the air. Using nukes would make the US a political pariah and most likely see it choke from international sanctions. I think Bannon's right (never thought I'd say that!).

 

Too right. I believe that some folks are trying to restrict his war time powers, but I don't know how effective that will be. My guess is that even the most die hard of Republicans aren't looking forward to a shooting war in Asia, but you never know.

Trump seems to care very little about US standing in the world, he also doesn't seem to understand the importance of international trade and cooperation. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent that would be.

 

And therein lies one of the major problems with society today, as I see it. The emphasis has moved totally away from looking to the future, to looking at right now. Nobody in industry seems to be looking at long term projections. Everything is short term gains, and let the future take care of itself. Greed and self-interest have replaced altruism almost completely. Maybe it's just a case of my own pessimism, but that's what it seems to me.

That's the part that terrifies me. North Korea by itself isn't much of an armed threat. However, their trade partners Russia and China could cause many problems for many years over an armed confrontation with North Korea.

 

To go back on Socialism, is the U.K even Socialist? We dont have state controlled means of production. Collectivist policies dont make socilism. (and even then more things are being privatised and cut in the public welfare area) I clearly do not use the Marxist definition of Socislism which is a state transferringg into Communism.

Also, European and North American politics, always clashing.

The U.K uses a national insurance health care system right? and is that what its called?

 

Socialism - Wikipedia

This is probably worth reading first.

 

I really dont like using wikipedia for politics. Its not academic, and there could be a dozen people edit it into a high pro or anti Bias that and i would need to fact check all their statements to the citations. I have also looked at it, it doesnt help that much to understand what Socislsim is, action has its own place in politics and is far more improtant than what they say they will do. And you usually need a understanding of what Socialism bases its ideology on.

Just dont like wiki for things which are more opinionated and suffer from that and require you to make a opinion from a relatively neutral source which is not wiki page.

Just my grivances, i have also at least skimmed it a while back and i have also looked up the definition of Socilism. And i also dont like having to read a lot more words when it can be summarised into: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (definition from google) and then read [insert Socialist philsophy books here] for a better understanding.

I am skimming/reading it as i type this as well.

 

Nuonce often requires having to read a little, wiki is fine for a basic primer as long as you don't take it as the 100% gospel truth.

 

I really doubt trump is thinking long term with this, he basically went to the United Nations, threatened nuclear war, and then said its every country for itself.

If the US does anything, or provokes anything, South Korea will be obliterated, Asia will be irradiated, and China and Russia will be back to being on a war footing.

 

If your long term plan results in the short term death of millions of people, well, you need a new plan. According to ex Secretary of State James Baker, the DPRK had nuclear weapons as early as 1988-1992. I doubt Trump's ultimatum will result in anything distinct from Clinton's, or even George W. Bush's.

 

Oh, on Nuclear war, i have a video:

Also, most of the military things are hypothetical as its working on worst case scenerio, noboyd knows how well North korean nuclear weapons will work against balstic weapon counters.

The only guaranteed result from a war between North Korean give or take South Korea involved is the Korean peninsula being wrecked. Mutually assured destruction does not apply and a conventional war would be bloody if it started that way or was the result of a sucessful or failed nuclear attack. I would question the effect of North Korean nuclear missiles to cripple any U.S response from its main land also.

*sits back drinking tea glad we are not the blood enemy of North Korea*

(and yes i am the ends justy the means general, now i must work on taking Pyongyang, using only Bayonets)

On another note, North Korea wont have the Chinese army sneak into its territory and Ambush U.S forces this time. (i dont recall how many was it a couple of divisions snuck into North Korea or just one) it also wont have Soviet help because they dont exist anymore.

 

Please Do Not Pet the Radioactive Puppies of Chernobyl

The side effects of radiation contamination......