Third Party & Independents Archives

​North Korea - The Honest Threat of a Brutal War

We have to avoid the horrific casualties. We couldn’t possibly go to war. We are risking a war with China itself. We have to use deterrence by bringing Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table. He’s not crazy, he’s just a tough cookie, a cold-blooded autocrat. Trump is crazy not Kim. How dare we consider attacking North Korea?!

And so on.

Now that Kim Jong Un has not exploded any nuclear weapons or launched any missiles for the past few weeks, people are wondering why. And at the same time, the foreign policy establishment continues to hew to it's standard policy prescriptions when advising or warning President Trump - usually through the means of published articles seeing one suspects there's little chance the president would read their memos. That is, they warn that negotiations are the only way, and that trade and economic sanctions are the only tactics that will work with Kim Jon Un.

In other words, anything to avoid war, and what would be possibly enormous casualties. By maintaining this stance, the foreign policy establishment is essentially admitting that it is impossible to truly avoid North Korea's becoming a true nuclear power, with the capacity to even strike continental America. And it's because of precisely these tactics that we have been led us to this point.

That brings us to the question of how crazy it really is for the White House to propose preemptive strikes - or preemptive war to be more accurate - as a possible response to North Korea's refusal to halt or discontinue its nuclear weapons program. And to use this possibility as a means of deterrence.

Deterrence in the case of North Korea actually works on at least two levels:

The mutually assured destruction on the Korean peninsula itself keeps North Korea from invading South Korea. American troops, ships, missiles, and other assets are key to this M.A.D. based deterrence.
The possible destruction from a wider East Asian War resulting from China entering on the DPRK's side in response to an outbreak of war between America and North Korea. This would include Japan and perhaps Taiwan as well.
The still hypothetical but increasingly possible mutually assured destruction from a fully nuclear North Korea launching a nuclear attack on the West Coast and Alaska as a response to an attack or as a preemptive suicidal attack, in order to ensure as much destruction before the complete elimination of North Korea itself in a nuclear war with America.
And Russia's actions in response to a Korean War have to be considered as well.
The military and intelligence agencies have layers and layers of possible scenarios that they game continually and they are surely running simulations overtime right now. How much confidence, however, can anyone have in these elaborate game-theory computer simulations? The two key actors are China and Kim Jong Un himself. We don't really know how they might react. Would China be willing to go to war over North Korea?

The foreign policy establishment says absolutely. The military analysts might be more discrete, but they rely on and share with the foreign policy wonks much of the same perspectives. Same schools, similar policy solutions. But it may be that a brutal war is the only way left to prevent a large slice of America from living under the shadow of nuclear attack in a way they haven't for a generation.

Or at least the honest threat of a brutal war. It's called real deterrence, unlike the hand wringing and pearl clutching we get from the policy wonks on North Korea. And yes, now it appears that President Trump is willing to talk. Is Kim Jong Un listening?

Posted by AllardK at November 17, 2017 4:17 PM
Comments
Comment #421699

“Would China be willing to go to war over North Korea?”

Simple answer; NO!

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2017 4:30 PM
Comment #421700
Is Kim Jong Un listenin Posted by AllardK at November 17, 2017 4:17 PM

Non-existent hack writer AllarkK, he’s more likely to be listening to China, which is upset about the underground testing so close to their border that the closest city thought they were having an earthquake, and the possibility of destruction of the mountain where it occurred, releasing nuclear fallout from the site. His opinion of the dotard in the White House is about the same as the majority of Americans, so we have that in common with him. Maybe we can agree to send him over there if Kim promises not to send him back.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 17, 2017 5:33 PM
Comment #421718

Royal Flush is obviously not a student of history.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2017 6:25 AM
Comment #421726

Obviously Warren is stuck in 50’s thinking and geopolitics.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2017 2:35 PM
Comment #421730

RF,

I am not going to engage with your hubris. The relationship between China & North Korea is too complicated for simple answers. Stop eating “the most beautiful” chocolate cake and study the history of Sino-Korean relations through the centuries.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2017 4:36 PM
Comment #421731

Warren Porter won’t even answer the question. He dances and skips around it afraid to be committal. Is it arrogant for me to answer a question with a simple “NO”? Please explain.

I don’t believe China would be willing to go to war over North Korea. Does Warren?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2017 4:44 PM
Comment #421738

It’s a complicated question lacking a simple answer. China’s decision to intervene or not intervene will be highly contextual.

Instead of asking me, why don’t you ask the Chinese?

Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China’s interests, China will respond with a firm hand.

China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so. (emphasis mine)

China opposes both nuclear proliferation and war in the Korean Peninsula. It will not encourage any side to stir up military conflict, and will firmly resist any side which wants to change the status quo of the areas where China’s interests are concerned. It is hoped that both Washington and Pyongyang can exercise restraint. The Korean Peninsula is where the strategic interests of all sides converge, and no side should try to be the absolute dominator of the region.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1060791.shtml

And before you play your stupid games, yes, I am aware that China states it will be neutral if North Korea initiates war. But the topic today is a war initiated by our side.

Personally, I do not think we can take the Chinese statements at face value. But, the editorial here provides some insight into their thinking. For instance, I am certain China would intervene if it ever thought there was a chance that troops allied with the United States would end up stationed along the southern bank of the Tumen & Yalu rivers. Chinese neutrality in a hypothetical war depends on convincing them that their buffer state on the Korean peninsula will survive. I’m not sure if it is possible to do that while simultaneously achieving our other wartime objectives.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2017 6:31 PM
Comment #421739

“And before you play your stupid games, yes, I am aware that China states it will be neutral if North Korea initiates war. But the topic today is a war initiated by our side.”

From where does Warren get this idea about war initiated by the US? Please share if you have sources unknown to us.

I answered a simple question asked by Allardk, and you feel it necessary to recount various opinions and assume that we will start a war. What the hell is wrong with you Warren?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2017 6:48 PM
Comment #421742
That brings us to the question of how crazy it really is for the White House to propose preemptive strikes - or preemptive war to be more accurate - as a possible response to North Korea’s refusal to halt or discontinue its nuclear weapons program. And to use this possibility as a means of deterrence.

Please read before you comment, Royal Flush. Preemptive war is war initiated by our side.

I answered a simple question asked by Allardk

You gave a simple answer to a complicated question and displayed the same lack of judgement that led to one of America’s largest military blunders of the 20th century.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2017 8:41 PM
Comment #421747

China got involved in the Korean war back in the 50s, but a lot has changed since then. They have a vested interest in the US economy, and rely on our markets heavily. That being said, they also do not wan’t an open democratic society like South Korea at their southern border. That would be the result of us finishing the Korean conflict once and for all. Would they get directly involved in a US conflict with the north ? I don’t know. Would they get involved indirectly ? I think they would.

Posted by: dbs at November 19, 2017 7:45 AM
Comment #421748

Dbs,

Excellent analysis. China’s reaction to renewed conflict in Korea won’t be easy to predict.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 8:20 AM
Comment #421751

I think China would wait until NK attacks and is defeated on the front lines and then occupy NK as a humanitarian savior, or back NK in it’s victory over SK and the US. I can’t see China supporting NK in a prolonged conflict.

The end result, as I foresee it, would be China’s occupation of NK in either case.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 11:00 AM
Comment #421754

I think China has a vested interest in the status quo. The current setup is a buffer between China and the free south. If the US and south were to remove the regime the south would see the territory as rightfully theirs. It would be hard to imagine the the US, and South Korea allowing China to move in and occupy the territory. JMO

Posted by: dbs at November 19, 2017 11:52 AM
Comment #421755

WW,

China’s problem is if they wait for NK to collapse before intervening, it may be too late. They spend far less on their military than we do. They cannot be confident in their ability to beat back the US & its allies by themselves. The Chinese face strong temptations to prop up the Kim regime as that would allow them to fight alongside one of the largest conscript armies.

You are right, I don’t think China desires a prolonged war of attrition against the USA + ROK on the Korean peninsula. However, there are no guarantees the conflict stays limited to the peninsula. Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang and the South China Sea all contain flash points that could open up new fronts. And don’t forget about China’s own nuclear tipped ICBM arsenal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 11:54 AM
Comment #421756

Dbs,

Exactly. China supports the status quo and will intervene to keep things as they are. And you are correct to keep RoK priorities in mind. They will be in the driver’s seat as the bulk of the fighting (and casualties) will involve their people. It takes a lot of hubris to imagine their war aims will be the same as ours.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 12:01 PM
Comment #421759

It’s the UN’s war. We just happen to be the big dumb guy. Trump could initiate a “limited engagement” just as Obama did in Lybia. We could provide the air cover and drone strikes to take out command and control of NK troops. Let the SK sit tight and defend the border if NK decides to launch an invasion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 12:41 PM
Comment #421762

There needs to be a contigency plan if the “limited” war escalates. Will South Korea really sit tight when tens od thousands die and Seoul melts away in the face of tremendous artillery fire? And what happens if Kim decides to launch his nuclear warheads in response to such a “limited” war.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 1:23 PM
Comment #421764

Drones can reach artillery easily enough. They wouldn’t have to face it for long. I don’t think Trump would quibble and politicize retaliating against a nuke strike from NK the way Obama would. It would be decisive and NK would regret it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 1:30 PM
Comment #421765

North Korea has capable air defenses. It would take days to neutralize the artillery threat. Many artillery will be armed with biological and chemical weapons. Maybe it is worth the lives of all those South Koreans, but the cost benefit analysis needs to take all into account.

I don’t think Trump would quibble and politicize retaliating against a nuke strike from NK the way Obama would. It would be decisive and NK would regret it.
Trump’s retaliation plan is the same as Obama’s. The question is whether the deterrent is being communicated accurately. Trump has left much to be desired on that front. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 1:39 PM
Comment #421768

I’ll bet dimes to donuts Trump doesn’t have a political officer in the war room the way Obama did.

Chemical and biological weapons would warrant tactical nuclear stikes in my opinion as they would guarantee the weapon’s destruction. I’m not so sure about China, but I think China would react decisively against NK if they used those types of weapons.

I would think the chem and bio weapons would be defensively used, not offensively. If NK used them it would only prove Trump correct in calling Kim a madman.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 2:35 PM
Comment #421769
I’ll bet dimes to donuts Trump doesn’t have a political officer in the war room the way Obama did.

Hahahahahahahahaha! Thank you for the joke. You haven’t forgotten that Trump is the man who put Bannon on the National Security Council earlier this year. Bannon may have left since then, but I guarantee that Jared Kushner and other political operatives are still in the loop. Now, I might say that Kushner is less qualified to be in such an advisory role than Ben Rhodes was under Obama, but I don’t want to engage in that sort of pissing match. Suffice to say, Trump’s capability for retaliating against North Korean aggression is identical to Obama’s.

I would think the chem and bio weapons would be defensively used, not offensively. If NK used them it would only prove Trump correct in calling Kim a madman.

My understanding is that the North Korean doctrine for chemical & biological weapons is that they are meant to be a deterrent against American aggression. That’s a defensive use, but the target is South Korea’s civilian population. Once a significant portion of Seoul is infected with anthrax or smallpox, no amount of tactical nuclear weapons will reverse the damage. Thousands to tens of thousands will die; maybe hundreds of thousands. So, that sort of escalation only makes sense as some sort of counter deterrent, but in order for the deterrence to work, there needs to be clear communication regarding America’s doctrine here. Likewise, we need to understand that North Korea would undoubtedly launch its nuclear weapons if it ever believed its own nuclear annihilation was inevitable.

I’m not so sure about China, but I think China would react decisively against NK if they used those types of weapons.
Depends on the context. If China is convinced that letting the PDRK use those weapons is the only way to preserve their buffer state, then they will definitely condone their use. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 3:07 PM
Comment #421781

Gee, wasn’t that fun? Not a single person, except me, would stick their neck out and answer with a simple yes or no. All they could do was rehash all that has been written by others for years.

What-if scenarios are fun, but useless.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2017 4:53 PM
Comment #421783

Thank goodness no one in a position of military power has such fondness for simple answers as Royal Flush. Wearie Willie and I had a pretty productive discussion of what the consequences of a limited war. Needless to say, they are complicated.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 4:59 PM
Comment #421785

More fence sitting Warren.

The question I answered required a yes or no.

Hell fire man…a ten year old can argue either way depending upon the facts at the time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2017 5:05 PM
Comment #421788

Binary thinking is the ultimate flaw of conservativism. It prevents proper understanding of the complex world we live in.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 5:50 PM
Comment #421789

Yup, present a problem to a Liberal and wait thirty years for an answer. Endless polls must be taken. Politics must be considered. Example: Are we winning the War on Poverty? Yes, no, maybe, next year, next decade, ask someone else.

Battlefield decisions are not your forte Warren. Stick to weather prediction. No definitive answers there either…just percentages based upon best guess.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2017 6:03 PM
Comment #421791

I am glad to take the time to get the answer right instead of leaping to conclusions and getting things wrong. And yes, metrology is unparalleled in its obsession with calculating the uncertainty in its forecasts. I am proud to be a part of that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 6:13 PM
Comment #421792

We are all proud of your great success Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2017 6:15 PM
Comment #421794

Don’t credit just me. The whole atmospheric scientific community has devoted many careers towards answering these questions. I’ve only stood on the shoulders of giants.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 7:20 PM
Comment #421795

Yes…great credit to all. I even credit the jobs like grounds keepers and window washers. I can honestly say that the TV weather I look at is correct more than half the time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2017 7:29 PM
Comment #421796

TV meteorologists are mostly for entertainment purposes. For the best forecasts, go to NOAA’s website.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 7:55 PM
Comment #421797

I’ve heard how GPS systems have to recalibrate themselves to reliably reach their destination due to the wobbling of the earth. The north pole is constantly changing position. It’s said the North Star isn’t stationary, but wobbles over time.

How do these factors influence the global atmosphere?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 8:04 PM
Comment #421798

That is; for jets to reliably reach their destination, my bad.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 8:06 PM
Comment #421800

The wobble of the Earth’s axis has tremendous influence on climate in the long term. It is a key part of the Milankovitch cycles, which most recently caused a million years of ice ages and interglacial periods.

The obliquity of Earth’s axis impacts the severity of seasonal variations directly (larger tilt increases the variation in seasonal solar insolation). The precession of the axis affect the severity of seasons by changing the timing of maximum solar insolation (Aphelion when it’s winter in the hemisphere with more land means more severe seasons).

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 10:36 PM
Comment #421801

Then you have the solar cycle. Every 11 years the sun goes through a cycle of rising and lowering temperatures, right?

Also, the planets have been in an approximate alignment which effects gravitational pull.

These factors can also influence global climate, yes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2017 11:39 PM
Comment #421802

Every 11 years, the sun’s magnetic field reverses in polarity. This cycle causes solar insolation to rise and fall slightly during the 11 year period.

Unlike the aforementioned Milankovitch cycles and solar cycles, gravitational influences from the other eight planets do not affect Earth’s climate in any measurable way. I guess if you really want to go into the deep end, the gravity from Jupiter influences which comets and asteroids impact the Earth, and of course such an impact would affect climate profoundly, but that’s all I can think of.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 11:59 PM
Comment #421807
gravitational influences from the other eight planets do not affect Earth’s climate in any measurable way.

Once upon a time popular opinion was that the earth was flat. They even put people in jail for thinking otherwise. Does that sound familiar?

How do you know gravitational pull of planets aligning doesn’t have any effect? Are the alignments included in the models that generate the global warming scenarios you believe in?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 12:32 AM
Comment #421808
TV meteorologists are mostly for entertainment purposes. For the best forecasts, go to NOAA’s website. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 19, 2017 7:55 PM

Sorry to interrupt your lesson Mr. Porter, but I’ve lived in Illinois and Florida, and “TV metorologists” in both places were very serious individuals.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 20, 2017 1:33 AM
Comment #421811

Thanx for sharing such useful post keep it up :)

Posted by: http://www.autocadhelp.net/ at November 20, 2017 6:26 AM
Comment #421812

I’m really impressed with your article, such great & usefull knowledge you mentioned here

Posted by: https://www.casestudy.help at November 20, 2017 6:26 AM
Comment #421816
How do you know gravitational pull of planets aligning doesn’t have any effect? Are the alignments included in the models that generate the global warming scenarios you believe in?

No one has ever measured the change in radiative forcing caused by the gravity of the other 8 planets. That’s why I said it was too small to be measurable. I do not have specific knowledge on whether or not people have tried to measure it, but I can assume that either someone tried and was unable to measure such a negligible change or nobody has tried because we all assume the change is too negligible to be worth chasing after. In the either case, there would be a great deal of reputational reward given to someone who could measure that interaction accurately. If the impact was significant enough to affect the accuracy of global climate models, such a discovery would be easily publishable in premier journals and the research grant spigot would shower torrents of money on whoever made the discovery.

Sorry to interrupt your lesson Mr. Porter, but I’ve lived in Illinois and Florida, and “TV metorologists” in both places were very serious individuals.

I am sure they are. However skilled they may be, they do not have the tools and resources available to forecasters at the National Weather Service. This is why most businesses with money on the line when it comes to weather bought subscriptions with my former employer or one of its competitors in order to benefit from our proprietary forecasts.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 10:10 AM
Comment #421824

The sun is not a solid. Planets could affect the sun just as the moon generates the earths tide. Planetary alignment and the gravitational pull of the combined planetary alignment could influence solar flares which would greatly affect earths climate.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 12:53 PM
Comment #421829
I am sure they are. However skilled they may be, they do not have the tools and resources available to forecasters at the National Weather Service. This is why most businesses with money on the line when it comes to weather bought subscriptions with my former employer or one of its competitors in order to benefit from our proprietary forecasts. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 10:10 AM

Seriously?

Tom Skilling … began working for WGN-TV Channel 9 on August 13, 1978. He is currently WGN’s chief meteorologist and is rumored to be the highest paid local broadcast meteorologist in the United States. He also writes the daily weather column in the Chicago Tribune. His weather broadcasts have always featured the latest technology in computer imagery and animation techniques. He has long been hailed for his in-depth reports and striking accuracy…Skilling is a member of the American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association. He hosts annual tornado and severe weather seminars at the Fermi National Accelerator Lab (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois. 2013 marked the 32nd year of the seminar and the first that featured presentations specifically on climate change.
(wiki) Posted by: ohrealy at November 20, 2017 3:32 PM
Comment #421830

Tom Skilling might be a talented man, but he isn’t running a NWP model in his closet. He looks at NOAA’s forecasts and does his best to add his own spin on top. His deep experience probably means his spin is more accurate than whatever I can come up with. I respect him and the others in his line of work, but he is paid to attract viewers to the newscast and that’s it.

WW,
Tidal forces between the 8 planets and the sun are probavly too minute to have that much influence on solar magnetism. If someone thinks otherwise, their goal should be to do the research necessary to prove their ideas right. They would be handsomely rewarded if they can demonstrate substantial causality here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 3:44 PM
Comment #421832

I wasn’t talking about magnetism, but I will yield to your superior expertise. This exercise was simple an example of the unknowns being dealt with as far as global warming and the fear mongering that goes with it. If no one has studied or knows of the effects of planetary alignment on the sun, and those effects relating to Earth’s climate then the entire global warming theory is speculation.

Who knows what other unknowns could be effecting Earth’s climate that we have no control over. However, I’m pretty sure thermal nuclear war with North Korea would have some effect on Earth’s climate.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 3:53 PM
Comment #421833

Those solar flares that you refer to are symptoms of solar magnetic activity.

If no one has studied or knows of the effects of planetary alignment on the sun, and those effects relating to Earth’s climate then the entire global warming theory is speculation.

This is fallacious thinking. There are infinite processes that minutely impact the Earth’s energy budget. We do not have to thoroughly investigate each and everyone of them to know that their impact is negligible. This is particularly poignant when there are far greater unknowns regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change theory.

And just because there are unknowns and uncertainties, does not mean it is unwise to plan ahead and mitigate potential problems. Reducing CO2 concentrations is no different than buying an insurance policy. It’s possible that disaster never strikes and one never reaps any direct benefit from the premium dollars paid. However, it is impossible to know that until it is too late and not insuring one’s property can be a very foolish decision, depending on the circumstances.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 4:29 PM
Comment #421834

People buy fire insurance, but it’s only good after the fire. People buy health insurance, but can’t use it until they’re sick. It helps them rebuild.

You say buy insurance in case the oceans flood. Will this insurance refreeze the ice caps and un-flood the coast? No! Who’s going to rebuild on flooded properties?

Even Algore doesn’t know what to insure against. This idea of global warming insurance is a pig in a poke.

Reducing CO2 concentrations could also end up starving a growing population out of existence! Have you ever thought that perhaps the ever expanding population of the Earth just might need the increased plant growth higher CO2 concentrations will bring? CO2 isn’t a poison as you claim it to be. It’s part of the food chain. Foolhardy notions that we should try to control it is folly.

Who knows? Maybe Kim Jong IL would be able to feed his people instead of the people feeding the parasites that infest their bodies.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 6:04 PM
Comment #421835
People buy fire insurance, but it’s only good after the fire. People buy health insurance, but can’t use it until they’re sick. It helps them rebuild.

Yes, it was a metaphor, not the literal truth. You are making a pedantic distinction. People sometimes buy a firearm as a method of insuring their person and their property. How’s that work?

Reducing CO2 concentrations could also end up starving a growing population out of existence! Have you ever thought that perhaps the ever expanding population of the Earth just might need the increased plant growth higher CO2 concentrations will bring? CO2 isn’t a poison as you claim it to be. It’s part of the food chain. Foolhardy notions that we should try to control it is folly.

CO2 fertilization has been considered and dismissed. It is unimportant to feeding 21st century populations. Population growth rates are on the decline. Bringing CO2 concentrations back down to preindustrial levels will not harm anyone.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 6:54 PM
Comment #421838

End of the world is not nigh after all (it’s been pushed back till 2100): Scientists use computer model to predict how quickly resources will run out

“A doom-laden US study in 1972 predicted that the earth would run out of food and resources, becoming uninhabitable by around 2050.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3172840/Scientists-use-computer-model-predict-end-world.html

Warren wasn’t around in the 1970’s with his prescience to inform scientists of the time that they were wrong.

However, today he is totally convinced that he is correct. Ah, yes…the folly of scientific certainty practiced by those with a political goal.

I didn’t believe the scary scientific predictions regarding earth and climate in the 70’s and I don’t believe it today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2017 7:46 PM
Comment #421839

I don’t think the world is running out of resources nor have I ever claimed this to be the case. There is a finite carrying capacity vis-a-vis human population, but my best guess is that it is greater than the 10 billion forecasted to inhabit this planet in the late 21st century.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 7:54 PM
Comment #421840

Warren didn’t get it. That’s OK, I am not surprised.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2017 7:58 PM
Comment #421841

Yea, Warren Porter, you don’t get it. Increased plant growth due to increased CO2 concentrations will facilitate a growing population.

Why do you deny that?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 9:44 PM
Comment #421842

Why do you adhere to a finite carrying capacity when humans have been changing their environment since God gave them reasoning powers?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 9:46 PM
Comment #421845
Warren didn’t get it. That’s OK, I am not surprised.
What a pity, I don’t think fallaciously like you.
Yea, Warren Porter, you don’t get it. Increased plant growth due to increased CO2 concentrations will facilitate a growing population.

I don’t believe Royal Flush was talking about CO2 fertilization. Increased CO2 concentrations and climate change will increase the productivity of some agricultural lands and decrease the productivity of others. It is my opinion that the decrease will be of greater magnitude than the increase, at least in the medium term. It’ll take a few centuries to adapt to a warmer Earth.

Why do you adhere to a finite carrying capacity when humans have been changing their environment since God gave them reasoning powers?

There are some aspects of the Earth that cannot be changed. There is only a finite amount of space available for humans to live. There is only a finite amount of energy available from the sun. That said, mankind will colonize other planets before they reach Earth’s hard limits.

Nevertheless, history is replete of examples of human societies that collapsed when they exploited their environments unsustainably. There is a correct way to alter Earth’s environment to suit mankind and an incorrect way.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 20, 2017 10:31 PM
Comment #421847

This is good! You say there are finite parameters. You mentioned a few. Define them, Warren Porter, so we can proceed on a level playing field.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 10:47 PM
Comment #421848

I hope the little rocket man is paying attention. This conversation could provide him with enough food to avoid a global catastrophe.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2017 10:52 PM
Comment #421861

The point I was making Warren, is that scientist in the 70’s were as certain about their earth and environmental positions as you and others seem to be today. Yet, how wrong they were.

Finite space and finite energy is a fallacy.

Cities can grow up to nearly unlimited height or down into the earth or upon the oceans and deserts. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and we will never run out of its abundance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2017 3:04 PM
Comment #421862


” Ah, yes…the folly of scientific certainty practiced by those with a political goal.”

“The point I was making Warren, is that scientist in the 70’s were as certain about their earth and environmental positions as you and others seem to be today. Yet, how wrong they were.”

You see Royal, that’s the difference between Science and Religion (dogma).

Science is constantly updating and changing…

Religion (dogma), not so much.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 21, 2017 7:11 PM
Comment #421863

It is so refreshing to read a well reasoned and informative comment from our Pal Rocky.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 21, 2017 7:16 PM
Comment #421875
Cities can grow up to nearly unlimited height or down into the earth or upon the oceans and deserts. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and we will never run out of its abundance.

You can trade energy to buy space or you can trade space to buy energy. That doesn’t mean the supply of either is infinite.

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and we will never run out of its abundance.
I do not know if you are referring to nuclear fusion (currently a fantasy) or hydrogen fuel cells. The former would indeed raise the Earth’s carrying capacity by many many orders of magnitude, but the latter isn’t even a source of energy (it is just a means of storing and transporting it). Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2017 9:52 AM
Comment #421887


warren


“You can trade energy to buy space or you can trade space to buy energy. That doesn’t mean the supply of either is infinite”

While this is true. We currently are no where even close to being out of space for either.

Posted by: dbs at November 22, 2017 1:12 PM
Comment #421922

I did say, the finite catrying capacity is probably larger than the 10 billion people expected to inhabit this planet in the late 21st century. That said, it will require using resources more efficiently than we are now.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 25, 2017 8:09 AM
Post a comment