Saturday, 15 April 2017

What should Donald do about North Korea?

The recent North Korean military parade  and rallies smack of Nazi rallies 1936-39.add child  indoctrination Hitler youth style  and we all know where that will end up. There s no question in my mind that Trump has to act quickly.

His strategy of hitting military targets with conventional weapons cruise and other missiles and avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible must be correct. He cannot allow Kim to threaten Japan  with nuclear attack.

The problems are North Korea could launch a conventional ground attack across the DMZ and a ground war is something Trump cannot politically contemplate not if he wants to stay President. I see avoiding this scenario as Trump's big problem but how? I am glad  its not my problem but if anyone can crack it it is the US army but faced with Kim it will be impossible to avoid civilian casualties and the bleeding heart liberal elite will be all over Trump like a rash.

The US will try to defend the South Korean population with sea borne anti-missile rockets but no US soldier should set foot on Korean soil. Supply the South Koreans with all the conventional arms and hardware they ask for but its up to them to use to defend themselves.

If Kim is stupid enough to go nuclear hitting South Korean cities it makes it easy for Trump but I do hope he will not retaliate with nuclear weapons. He can do whatever he wants except that.

Longer term he will have eventually to face up to China and that will require an alliance with Russia Putin and all. The US cannnot tolerate China grabbing a big chunk of the South C hina Sea through its artifical fortified island comstruction programme. All problems ignored by Obama the worst US president imop since Randy Jack Kennnedy.


Niall Warry said...

Trump inherited his business empire and is now clearly part of America'a upper class.

The point is, as I added to the post below, you should judge a person on their abilities or lack of them and not on their class or status.

Eric Edmond said...

Indeed you should Major but Trump has ability which many Brit officers seem to lack. Tell me about Basra where the Yanks had to rescue Brit unit.

Niall Warry said...

I don't disagree we FAILED in Basra and Afghanistan largely due to poor leadership but also lack of resources which is political and not military.

However for our Basra I'll give you the 'clusterfuck' that was Falluja where the US marines ran amok.

It is overall good leadership and competence NOT class that is the deciding factor in how an army performs.

Niall Warry said...


And generally we win war we are involved with so we must be better than the others!

Eric Edmond said...

Brits had to be bailed out by the Prussians at Waterloo. Old saw should read Britains battles were l0st on the playing fields of Eton. Churchill had no confidence in WWII that the British Army could stand up to the Wehrmacht and he was right. Johnny Ruski did for the Hun and not a single Sandhurst officer in the Red Army. You have to be objective about these things Major and not believe your own publicity/propaganda. Try ranking the UK regiments by effectiveness and plot it against percentage if public school officers.

Niall Warry said...

I still maintain all armies can 'mess up' and often win wars with the backing of other countries in coalition. So we are no different to others.

As to our leadership I accept that it was once exclusively from public schools but again that did not make it any worse than other armies they fought.

I accept we completely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was a combination of poor tactics by the Generals and lack of political understanding and poor resources.

My point about officer selection is very valid and does select people from all backgrounds who have the potential to become leaders of men. British junior officers are good leaders of men and women the trouble is that the top brass becomes politicised and are too long in the tooth. The Israeli army's generals are much younger than ours and better for that.

Finally regardless of class or background I think you have accepted we should judge people on their abilities and not where they went to school.

Kevin Renson said...

@ Mr Warry - on 21st March, you told me, and I quote, "swearing NEVER strengthens one's case". You have rather amusingly blown your own argument, because your less than angelically-phrased above post forms part of a sequence of contributions, over the course of this blog entry and the last, in which you have comprehensively wiped the floor with Mr Edmond. Dare I say it, you have given him a right old cluster****ing! LOL! Not that such a task is particularly difficult, given the sheer dumbness of his position and chosen examples. In the circumstances I shall overlook your slight touch of hypocrisy as you have provided rich entertainment at the expense of the world's most useless class warrior.

PS All obscene and offensive words such as Far*ge were carefully avoided in the above post.

Niall Warry said...

To Kevin Renson - I'm glad you support my position on the class thing' but I don't see the use of the word 'clusterfuck', to describe a military 'balls up', in the same league as general swearing.

Sadly Eric looses all sense of proportion when discussing our class issues or of course his bonnie Scotland but that is good old Eric for you!

Eric Edmond said...

Sorry Major I deal in facts not predjudice. Last winning Brit General was John Churchill, over 300 years ago who during the War of the Spanish succession got us Gibraltar. Wellesley was passable but had to rely on the Germans to win at Waterloo and was obsesed with Eton.

I repeat my question to the Major, How did the Ruskis manage to duff up Hitler's Panzers without a single public schoolboy?

Eric Edmond said...

I notice Major you have failed to answer my question, What should the Donald do about North Korea? Please pay attention.

Niall Warry said...

Russia had a monarchy and I assume private schools so I also assume their military had upper class officers.

Are you seriously suggesting their were no good British Generals in the WW 1&2 orin the conflicts since?

Trump and N.Korea - I think IF N.Korea is a SERIOUS regional treat then he should 'take out' some of their military hardware BUT only if he is supported by China.

Eric Edmond said...

Better effort Major but still a fail. Stalin purged Red Army officer corps several times in 1930s. Stalin only liked public schoolboys if they were Russian spies, Burgess, Maclean Philby etc.

No doubt that N Korea is a serious regional threat. Problem is they do not know location of much N Korea hardware. I doubt if Chines support is reliable. Big problems all round.

Name me a few good Brit Army Generals in WWI & II. I fear they were heavily outnumbered by the incompatent ones.

Niall Warry said...

FIRST - The Red Army won the Eastern Front campaign for the following reasons which had NOTHING to do with their lack of upper class officers which incidentally even Stalin partially restored in 1940.

1) The Russians received tremendous aid and weapons from the United States through the port of Murmansk.
2) The Germans were not prepared for the Russian winter: no winter clothes, etc.
3) The German supply line was very, very long. It took tremendous resources just to supply their army and this supply line was under constant threat.
4) The Russians eventually developed better weapons, particularly the T-43 tank and their advanced fighter aircraft that were better than the comparable German weapons systems.
5) The Germans had a western front to think of that deflected resources away from the Russian front.
6) The Russians gained control of the skies as the Luftwaffe diminished in planes and pilots.
7) The Russian factories that had been moved into the far east by Stalin were left undamaged and were able to supply Russian forces with needed weapons.
8) The Russian would not quit. They demonstrated incredible strength against overwhelming odds. The Battle of Stalingrad is an example.
9) The Russians were only fighting on one front.
10) Eventually, the Russian superiority in population and its ability to resupply its soldiers and weapons was an important factor.

SECOND - Targets in N.Korea - even the Daily Mail today lists four targets on a map of the country.

THIRD - British Army Officers of merit.

1.Haig - adopted greater mechanisation than the Germans and won
2.Allenby - Wealth of experience from Boer war.
3.Plumer- modest man and decisive victory at Messines.
4.AllanBrooke - great planner and created best high command structure.
5.Slim - won against the odds with poor equipment.
6.Montgomery- For all his idiosyncrasies was a winner

To me it is 100% clear that your views on the value of our officer class is driven completely by prejudice.

Eric Edmond said...

Haig typified all that was wrong with the British officr elite. Over a million men killed and crippled to persue his useless tactics. The Germans were not a defeated army in Nov 1918 leading to WWII.

I thought we lost the Boer war to a bunch of farmers.

Montgomery won in North Africa through overwhelming numerical superiority. Was he not sent out by Churchill to replace Allan Brooke?

I agree about Slim but whatabout Singapore wehere the British Army garrison surrendered to a force half its size.

I guess you and I have diffferent ideas of what winning means.

Duffing up natives was even beyond them in the first Afghan War, 1837.British Army was virtually wiped out in the retreat from Kabul. Two survivors from an army of two thousand. They have been losing in Afghan ever since beause our thicko Generals never learn.

Eric Edmond said...

PS , does the UK army high command read the Daily Mirror? My granny used to.

Niall Warry said...

You have to consider Haig in his time and related to his contemporaries and NOT based on the distorted view of the film 'Oh what a lovely war'.

As I said you comments are fuelled by prejudice and are not objective as you comment with the huge benefit of hindsight.

So we lost WW1 well that's a big surprise - what are you suggesting as the Germans surrendered we should have shot them all thus preventing WW2?

However the key point in all this is military blunders happen and will continue to happen regardless of what the social backgrounds of the officers - Period.

Eric Edmond said...

No we did not lose WWI but we did not win it. The german army never surrendered it ended with aN ARMISTICE.

I have bever seen Oh what a lovely war but I have seen the war graves in Northern France here my granny's bother lies buried. Where was Haig who was responsible for a fair amount of the slaughter buried? Loos, the Somme, Paschendale etc

Yes there will continue to be military blunders but putting the same type of people in charge guarantees blunders will continue unabated.

There was an outstanding National Service offficer I knew vaguely, out of a coumcil school They were eventually shamed into giving him a DSO. Gongs were for regulars. He kept his platoon alive and did what was asked of him.

I asked you before to name a British General educated at a local authority school. You did not answer.

Niall Warry said...

Your inflexibility and prejudice on these issues knows no bounds!!

1. why did Germany sign the Armistice - because they were winning?

2. Col H of the Paras lead a charge in the Falklands and look where that got him and his ability to do HIS job of leading his four companies in battle. A General's job is not to directly engage the enemy. How many German Generals are buried in the war cemeteries? This point you make is just foolish and wrong.

3.Military blunders will CONTINUE what ever the 'class' of the officer.

4. Ok so you knew one outstanding NS officer that hardly proves the point that all public school educated officers are useless.

5. I can NOT list past or present Generals on where they went to school. All I can say is that looking at past periods of history most clearly did come from public schools in the WWs, and before that, the reason being that the education was conducive to leading men. My grandfather survived the first and second World War his first job being to bury the dead to get used to what was to follow. He was in the trenches and lived the same uncomfortable life as his men until after being wounded he returned to the Royal Flying Corp where life expectancy was LESS was than in the trenches. To my knowledge you have NOT dug a slit trench with your men,as |I have and shared the same food, always served after the men, and yet you seek to pontificate from the comfort of your armchair about Military leadership. Many public schools boys lost their lives in both WWs.
As to the situation now I again don't have a statistic but increasingly officers come from all backgrounds and where ever they come from have to pass the same tough selection process so if you are good enough you get in.

Come on Eric for how much longer can you keep flogging this hobby horse of yours?

Eric Edmond said...

Nope, just travelled across Sahara desert with a bunch of Arabs and no batman.

Sorry about your Granpa.

Its funny how the Royals always are found to be officer material but then fade into oblivion where they belong. I seem to remember one of them could not hack it on Royal Marine training course. I conclude he should never have been selected in the first place.

Allegedly Charlie boy's crew had great difficulty stopping him from steering his minesweeper into the Forth bridge coming out of Rosyth. I think however he has now found his true vocation, talking to plants and shagging Camilla

Niall Warry said...

No need to be sorry for my grandfather who survived both wars and lived happily there after in Devon and managed to cope without a single counselling session!

As you accuse me I notice you have not answered my points and changed the subject onto the Royals!

As to the Royals you will not find me disagreeing that they should NOT be allowed in the military without completing EXACTLY the same selection tests and further to this they should not be put forward for military service if they are NOT suitable as clearly Edward wasn't. Andrew learnt to fly a helicopter but was unpopular so I gather and Charles should not have been given command of his minesweeper and as you say should be left to talk to his plants.

I am currently a Royalist as the alternative is NO better but I want my monarch to act like our current Queen and if the next in line doesn't wind his neck in I could easily become very anti.

I think after this exchange we need to meet up for a Macdonalds!!

Eric Edmond said...

Agreed Major especially after Mrs May's election bombshell today. Which day auits you?

Eric Edmond said...

I do know a very good restaurant in Yeovil that does a very nice 2 or 3 course lunch forless than £12. Good food and you can park for 2.5 hours free at Tesco's car park. Your lady might enjoy it. As Private 3rd class I can only bring my wife.