Jump to content
TGHusker

Will There be War wt N Korea next 4 years

Will there be a War with N. Korea?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Will there be a limited war wt N Korea during the next 4 years?

    • No
      12
    • Yes
      17


Recommended Posts

commando    1,615

 

 

 

 

Um.... NO THEY AREN'T.

 

Know how I know? Because we haven't prepped anything for a war with North Korea.

 

1) There are tens of thousands of Americans in South Korea who would need to be evacuated before shooting starts. We haven't even begun that process.

 

2) Our military is not massing on the border, nor are there troops on transports waiting to land on shore further north. The majority of our troops are not in a state of readiness, and it will take weeks to get them there. The logistics of moving hundreds of thousands of troops, materiel and support staff may escape Trump, but then he's more Saddam Hussein than Norman Schwarzkopf.

 

3) Along with #2, we'd need air cover. The Air Force can operate out of bases in South Korea, but we'd need sea power, too. That means carrier task forces, plural, and those take time to move into position. Sure, The USS Carl Vinson has been stationed there for months as Trump promised ( <_< ) but we have no other assets in the area. Further, those fleets will need to be brought to combat readiness, not just geared up for patrols, all of which, again, takes time. Air Force assets can be moved in a couple days, but the support staff & infrastructure necessary to allow land-based aircraft the ability to operate needs to be moved, and that will take days/weeks.

 

4) We will build a coalition of allies to go with us. Unilateral action by the US Military would be condemned, and if anything goes wrong the onus of that lies solely with us as the lone actor. If nothing else, by garnering support from amongst our allies, we'll have fewer countries potentially condemning our move. This process could have begun in secret, but as yet nobody has publicly signed on for anything more than economic sanctions.

 

 

 

 

Trump has no grasp of the logistics of these things, but the North Koreans (and the rest of the world) certainly do. This kind of stuff whips up the base and distracts them from the Russia investigation, but it makes Trump and the US look as foolish in the eyes of the world as Saddam looked with his "mother of all battles" nonsense before the Gulf War. A GOP president, George Bush I, put an end to that blather right quick.

 

The GOP went from supporting the deposing of tin pot dictators to hanging on one's every tweet. It's sad.

well...if he has chosen the nuclear option he could mean that the bombs have now been programmed to land on N. Korean targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,278

Even if he's chosen that we'd still need boots on the ground to mop up what's left of the country. We won't destroy his entire military, and whatever's left will surely retaliate against South Korea. Defending that will require a war footing we're not on yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,782

Even if he's chosen that we'd still need boots on the ground to mop up what's left of the country. We won't destroy his entire military, and whatever's left will surely retaliate against South Korea. Defending that will require a war footing we're not on yet.

I agree that Trump is probably full of sh!t.

 

But to play devil's advocate, the US military is always at a stance of possible war with NK. Here's a good article on US forces in that region. And the US has some long-range capability (we were bombing Afghanistan from airbases in Missouri at one point) and fast mobility (no reason to put aircraft carriers near NK when they can get there in a matter of hours or days). Not to mention covert assets like submarines and special forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,364

 

I think Trump has a basic intuition about how the kind of influence he has with his tweets. He just doesn't really care (or understand) the consequences.

 

In other words, he doesn't want this crisis to end.

 

Actually, he probably wants a war. There's nothing like a war to get everyone in line, because when it comes down to it the left and right will both want to see America's military not lose. And as Republican Senate hawks like Lindsey Graham are saying, comfortably ensconced in their continental seats, the death and destruction will be "over there".

 

This war will be useful to a lot of people, notably the Republicans who are having a hard time defending their continued alignment with the President's domestic agenda. These people, like Trump, are not particularly concerned with lives. They've got better priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,782

Knapp is exactly right:

Again playing devil's advocate, that article makes the argument that Trump is lying based on the premise that the US "would require deploying a huge number of new military assets beyond what the US currently has stationed in South Korea and East Asia", which isn't necessarily true. The rest of the article describing why Trump is sending bad signals to NK, I agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,364

Trying to parse this argument. I think we're saying different things, perhaps?

You're saying that the U.S. is "in place" to defend South Korea by our baseline deployment of assets, which is more or less how it has been ever since the fighting stopped in 1953.

On the other hand, that's different from a declaration that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" for a war with North Korea -- which, if not explicit, is what Trump is heavily implying. He's not one for precision (in that he doesn't know anything), but he's suggesting that something new has occurred with regard to military posture. But it has not. That's the entire reason why this is a bad signal to send; NK knows the score of the status quo, whereas the claim is vague and menacing in its false proclamation of a shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,782

Trying to parse this argument. I think we're saying different things, perhaps?

 

You're saying that the U.S. is "in place" to defend South Korea by our baseline deployment of assets, which is more or less how it has been ever since the fighting stopped in 1953.

 

On the other hand, that's different from a declaration that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" for a war with North Korea -- which, if not explicit, is what Trump is heavily implying. He's not one for precision (in that he doesn't know anything), but he's suggesting that something new has occurred with regard to military posture. But it has not. That's the entire reason why this is a bad signal to send; NK knows the score of the status quo, whereas the claim is vague and menacing in its false proclamation of a shift.

I'm not trying to defend Trump's tweet here. I'm instead pushing back against the supposition that the US is required to deploy troops for a war with NK.

 

Let me lay out a plausible military strategy for the US (even if it may not be likely): Suppose the US thinks that any engagement with NK is likely to result in using nukes against NK either because NK is likely to use nukes first or because conventional forces are inadequate to prevent an invasion. If that's the case, the US can strike NK with nukes from practically anywhere on earth (bombers from bases/aircraft carriers, ICBM's from silos or submarines, or cruise missiles from submarines/ships/aircraft). So there's no reason to move additional US military forces near NK because it makes it easier for NK to engage those forces conventionally or with WMD's. This is the terrifying case where NOT deploying more troops makes sense.

 

EDIT: And Trump could be referring to setting up the US nuclear arsenal to make that happen (reprogramming targets, moving subs into position, etc.) which would not be public knowledge.

Edited by RedDenver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,278

Skepticism is fine, but just saying "to play devil's advocate..." and having no support for that is just spinning tires.

 

We will not,- repeat, will NOT - use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Such an action against what is regarded as a hostage population would be condemned worldwide. Congress would condemn it and Trump's presidency would be, for all intents & purposes, over at that point. Both sides of the aisle would be hostile toward him and he does not have enough political clout to overcome that kind of opposition.

 

A president can not unilaterally order a nuclear strike. The Secretary of Defense has to sign off on such an order, and Jim Mattis is not the kind of person to rashly jump into such a conflict. He's already been a key figure in one botched military escapade (the Yemen strike) and he's not likely to make such a mistake again. Read up on what kind of man Mattis is.

 

After that nuclear strike - then what? If we don't eliminate North Korea's military in the first few minutes, they're going to retaliate. Seoul, with a population of millions, is within range of North Korean artillery. Without an evacuation, tens of thousands of civilians will die via North Korean counterstrikes. Past that, America & South Korea would have to enter North Korea and mop up what's left of the country - but there's China to deal with, and the Chinese do not want an American puppet on their flank. That's why North Korea exists at all. With under 50,000 US troops on the Korean peninsula, and with millions of Chinese just across the North Korea/China border, we'd lost that battle in days.

 

Here's NPR's analysis on why we aren't going to war. The last few lines echo other things I've read: The canary in the coal mine will be the evacuation of US citizens from South Korea. That hasn't even been hinted at yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
schriznoeder    147

 

The craziest thing about Trump is how there's always an old tweet that corresponds with his current situation.

 

 

the guy is a real Nostradumbass

 

 

More amazing prophesy. Tremendous really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,782

Skepticism is fine, but just saying "to play devil's advocate..." and having no support for that is just spinning tires.

 

We will not,- repeat, will NOT - use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Such an action against what is regarded as a hostage population would be condemned worldwide. Congress would condemn it and Trump's presidency would be, for all intents & purposes, over at that point. Both sides of the aisle would be hostile toward him and he does not have enough political clout to overcome that kind of opposition.

 

A president can not unilaterally order a nuclear strike. The Secretary of Defense has to sign off on such an order, and Jim Mattis is not the kind of person to rashly jump into such a conflict. He's already been a key figure in one botched military escapade (the Yemen strike) and he's not likely to make such a mistake again. Read up on what kind of man Mattis is.

 

After that nuclear strike - then what? If we don't eliminate North Korea's military in the first few minutes, they're going to retaliate. Seoul, with a population of millions, is within range of North Korean artillery. Without an evacuation, tens of thousands of civilians will die via North Korean counterstrikes. Past that, America & South Korea would have to enter North Korea and mop up what's left of the country - but there's China to deal with, and the Chinese do not want an American puppet on their flank. That's why North Korea exists at all. With under 50,000 US troops on the Korean peninsula, and with millions of Chinese just across the North Korea/China border, we'd lost that battle in days.

 

Here's NPR's analysis on why we aren't going to war. The last few lines echo other things I've read: The canary in the coal mine will be the evacuation of US citizens from South Korea. That hasn't even been hinted at yet.

You are assuming that I'm saying the US would strike first, but I said, "Suppose the US thinks that any engagement with NK is likely to result in using nukes against NK either because NK is likely to use nukes first". If NK strikes first, then what? Do you think the US won't shoot back? And do you think it's better for more US forces to be in the vicinity?

 

Just because the US isn't preparing to invade NK doesn't mean the US isn't ready for NK to strike. All I'm arguing is that there's a plausible strategy that doesn't involve Trump lying in his tweet, so people shouldn't jump to that conclusion but should instead also consider what it means if he's telling the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,278

 

Skepticism is fine, but just saying "to play devil's advocate..." and having no support for that is just spinning tires.

 

We will not,- repeat, will NOT - use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Such an action against what is regarded as a hostage population would be condemned worldwide. Congress would condemn it and Trump's presidency would be, for all intents & purposes, over at that point. Both sides of the aisle would be hostile toward him and he does not have enough political clout to overcome that kind of opposition.

 

A president can not unilaterally order a nuclear strike. The Secretary of Defense has to sign off on such an order, and Jim Mattis is not the kind of person to rashly jump into such a conflict. He's already been a key figure in one botched military escapade (the Yemen strike) and he's not likely to make such a mistake again. Read up on what kind of man Mattis is.

 

After that nuclear strike - then what? If we don't eliminate North Korea's military in the first few minutes, they're going to retaliate. Seoul, with a population of millions, is within range of North Korean artillery. Without an evacuation, tens of thousands of civilians will die via North Korean counterstrikes. Past that, America & South Korea would have to enter North Korea and mop up what's left of the country - but there's China to deal with, and the Chinese do not want an American puppet on their flank. That's why North Korea exists at all. With under 50,000 US troops on the Korean peninsula, and with millions of Chinese just across the North Korea/China border, we'd lost that battle in days.

 

Here's NPR's analysis on why we aren't going to war. The last few lines echo other things I've read: The canary in the coal mine will be the evacuation of US citizens from South Korea. That hasn't even been hinted at yet.

You are assuming that I'm saying the US would strike first, but I said, "Suppose the US thinks that any engagement with NK is likely to result in using nukes against NK either because NK is likely to use nukes first". If NK strikes first, then what? Do you think the US won't shoot back? And do you think it's better for more US forces to be in the vicinity?

 

Just because the US isn't preparing to invade NK doesn't mean the US isn't ready for NK to strike. All I'm arguing is that there's a plausible strategy that doesn't involve Trump lying in his tweet, so people shouldn't jump to that conclusion but should instead also consider what it means if he's telling the truth.

 

 

Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

If there's a choice between 1) Is Trump telling the truth, or 2) Is Trump saying something that is untrue but benefits him in some way, you ALWAYS choose #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,472

 

 

*snip* This kind of stuff whips up the base and distracts them from the Russia investigation, but it makes Trump and the US look as foolish in the eyes of the world as Saddam looked with his "mother of all battles" nonsense before the Gulf War. *snip*

The fact that this tweet has near 150K likes by the end of the day tells us everything we need to know.

 

I don't know how many of those are bots, but it is discomforting that that many people hang on Trump's every word and support this stuff. Way too many mili-boners out there ready to prove how "tough" America is without thinking through the implications, like, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,782

 

 

Skepticism is fine, but just saying "to play devil's advocate..." and having no support for that is just spinning tires.

 

We will not,- repeat, will NOT - use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Such an action against what is regarded as a hostage population would be condemned worldwide. Congress would condemn it and Trump's presidency would be, for all intents & purposes, over at that point. Both sides of the aisle would be hostile toward him and he does not have enough political clout to overcome that kind of opposition.

 

A president can not unilaterally order a nuclear strike. The Secretary of Defense has to sign off on such an order, and Jim Mattis is not the kind of person to rashly jump into such a conflict. He's already been a key figure in one botched military escapade (the Yemen strike) and he's not likely to make such a mistake again. Read up on what kind of man Mattis is.

 

After that nuclear strike - then what? If we don't eliminate North Korea's military in the first few minutes, they're going to retaliate. Seoul, with a population of millions, is within range of North Korean artillery. Without an evacuation, tens of thousands of civilians will die via North Korean counterstrikes. Past that, America & South Korea would have to enter North Korea and mop up what's left of the country - but there's China to deal with, and the Chinese do not want an American puppet on their flank. That's why North Korea exists at all. With under 50,000 US troops on the Korean peninsula, and with millions of Chinese just across the North Korea/China border, we'd lost that battle in days.

 

Here's NPR's analysis on why we aren't going to war. The last few lines echo other things I've read: The canary in the coal mine will be the evacuation of US citizens from South Korea. That hasn't even been hinted at yet.

You are assuming that I'm saying the US would strike first, but I said, "Suppose the US thinks that any engagement with NK is likely to result in using nukes against NK either because NK is likely to use nukes first". If NK strikes first, then what? Do you think the US won't shoot back? And do you think it's better for more US forces to be in the vicinity?

 

Just because the US isn't preparing to invade NK doesn't mean the US isn't ready for NK to strike. All I'm arguing is that there's a plausible strategy that doesn't involve Trump lying in his tweet, so people shouldn't jump to that conclusion but should instead also consider what it means if he's telling the truth.

 

 

Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

If there's a choice between 1) Is Trump telling the truth, or 2) Is Trump saying something that is untrue but benefits him in some way, you ALWAYS choose #2.

 

I agree with that although I don't think I'm giving the benefit of the doubt as my version of what Trump's saying heavily implies nuclear retaliation. Either way Trump is treading in very dangerous waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,330

 

 

 

*snip* This kind of stuff whips up the base and distracts them from the Russia investigation, but it makes Trump and the US look as foolish in the eyes of the world as Saddam looked with his "mother of all battles" nonsense before the Gulf War. *snip*

The fact that this tweet has near 150K likes by the end of the day tells us everything we need to know.

 

I don't know how many of those are bots, but it is discomforting that that many people hang on Trump's every word and support this stuff. Way too many mili-boners out there ready to prove how "tough" America is without thinking through the implications, like, at all.

 

I wonder if those 150k likes are willing to stand at the DMZ with our soldiers at the time Trump hits the red button?? :dunno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    7,988

So....let me just clarify something here.

 

Trump is wanting to take military action if Kim Jong Un doesn't get rid of his nuclear weapons right?

So....if Un doesn't do anything more but doesn't get rid of them......he's wanting to send in troops. Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,782

So....let me just clarify something here.

 

Trump is wanting to take military action if Kim Jong Un doesn't get rid of his nuclear weapons right?

 

So....if Un doesn't do anything more but doesn't get rid of them......he's wanting to send in troops. Correct?

I don't think Trump has the same plan from minute to minute, so who knows where he stands. But I very much doubt we send in troops. If we do, I think it'll be the first time two nuclear powers have engaged in war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,278

I also went 6/8. One of those from the DPRK is couched in awfully colloquial American English. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,330

So besides NK we got another member of the 'axis of evil' moving ships into the Atlantic - So we got Fat Boy to the left and Crazy Beards to the right and we are 'stuck in the middle with Trump' to navigate us through these foreign affair issues.

How does that make you feel? :o

 

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-sending-warships-atlantic-ocean-amid-massive-new-military-buildup/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funhusker    742

My wife and I just took the quiz together. I knew a couple of the Trump Tweets for sure but there were several that I wasn't sure of so I read them aloud to my wife. She gave Kim credit for the better vocabulary responses and the "short and simple" responses to Trump. She went 4/4....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,278

In what is perhaps the least shocking news of the day:

 

North Korea backs off Guam missile threat: report

North Korea is backing off a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, according to a new report.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he had decided not to launch an attack, but warned he could change his mind.

“If the Yankees persist in their extremely dangerous reckless actions on the Korean Peninsula and in its vicinity, testing the restraint of the DPRK [North Korea], the [North] will make an important decision as it already declared,” Kim said according to the country’s state media, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The statement could help reduce tensions in the region.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    7,988

There will be people who claim victory for Trump and how amazingly he stared down the evil leader of DPRK.

 

However, let's not forget that Trump's goal is for Un to completely give up his nuclear weapons. So, one of two things are going to happen.

 

1) Trump all of a sudden forgets about his bold statements about this. (In other words, nothing would have changed from before Trump took office but he gets to puff his chest out as some great military leader)

 

2) He still caries through with trying to make Un get rid of his weapons. (Very possibly disaster.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZRod    2,851

Question. Why do we acknowledge a regime who contributes next to nothing culturally, industrially, or intellectually to the rest of the world. When they want to act like a sovereign country we can treat then like one. Until then they can sit in the corner and howel till they lose their voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
teachercd    3,206

Question. Why do we acknowledge a regime who contributes next to nothing culturally, industrially, or intellectually to the rest of the world. When they want to act like a sovereign country we can treat then like one. Until then they can sit in the corner and howel till they lose their voice.

That is a good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,278

Question. Why do we acknowledge a regime who contributes next to nothing culturally, industrially, or intellectually to the rest of the world. When they want to act like a sovereign country we can treat then like one. Until then they can sit in the corner and howel till they lose their voice.

I think it's news in America (pre-nuclear stage) because we basically lost a war there. I have relatives who fought in Korea and talk about the war on occasion.

 

I don't think the DPRK was news in most other areas of the world until they started detonating nukes. Before that, they were basically just a pawn in the China/USA battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,330

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/China-US-NKorea-diplomacy/2017/08/17/id/808119/

 

Peace with North Korea is a "possibility", America's most senior uniformed officer said Thursday, but warned the US has "credible, viable military options" for dealing with the errant regime.

General Joe Dunford, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, also told reporters during his visit to Beijing that the US has no plans to "dial back" military exercises with South Korea, which have angered both China and North Korea.

Dunford made the remarks on the last day of a trip to China that included a visit on Wednesday to a northern military zone near China's border with North Korea.

"What's unimaginable to me is not a military option," Dunford told reporters before a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

"What is unimaginable is allowing (North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un) to develop ballistic missiles with a nuclear warhead that can threaten the United States and continue to threaten the region."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,122

The problem with this missile launch is this one flew over Japan and caused Japan to notify its citizens to take cover. That could cause some pressure to this unstable situation. This is what the NBC Nightly News reported tonight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sho    103

The NK problem has been stewing and passed on for so long, and now that things are at a critical mass, it falls into the lap of the person least capable of handling this correctly.  Perhaps that's why things are ratcheting up.  Either way, this is not good news.

 

Quote

North Korea's launch of a missile over Japan was a prelude to more military operations directed at the American territory of Guam, North Korean state media warned Wednesday.

 

I'm not sure what the right move is next, but after the 'fire and fury' comments and now this, we have pretty much backed ourselves up into a corner where we have to act now.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/asia/north-korea-missile-launch-guam-threat/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sho    103

Getting closer to that war.

 

 

Quote

 

THE US staged its own terrifying show of strength today by dropping huge bombs near the North Korean border  - days after Kim Jong-un's latest missile outrage.

Four US F-35B fighter jets joined two nuclear-ready US B-1B bombers and four South Korean F-15 fighter jets in the joint military operation over the troubled Korean Peninsula.

The rogue state described the drills - which saw target bombing close to its border - as the "rash act" of a desperate nation

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4361741/us-nuke-capable-jets-drop-bombs-near-north-korea-border-after-donald-trump-warned-talking-was-not-the-answer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZRod    2,851

Seriously, what does Kim want from this? Would China even help him if the US declared war? A war involving the US and China could cripple the Chinese economy by taking away their largest single trade partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,330

Well the stakes got higher over the weekend.  NK testing a H bomb.  Trump saying "We'll see" to the question of us attacking NK, and UN Ambassador basically drawing a line in the sand - saying enough is enough - that NK is 'begging for war'.     Former Ambassador Bill Richardson said Kim isn't suicidal but unpredictable. 

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bill-richardson-kim-jong-un-unpredictable-not/2017/09/04/id/811531/

North Korea's claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb over the weekend show they are actively defying both the United States and China, and they are not backing down from their efforts to upgrade their nuclear capabilities, but leader Kim Jong Un is not suicidal, former ambassador Bill Richardson said Monday.

"It's provocative and very serious," Richardson, also a former governor of New Mexico, told MSNBC. "I think Secretary [James] Mattis was right in his very strong response. We can't tolerate this."

Richardson said Mattis "offered a little bit of an olive branch" with his comments, in particular the United States is "'not looking to the total annihilation of a country — namely, North Korea.'" Further, the former ambassador said he is impressed in how the Trump administration's national security team is being strong, but showing restraint.

He also commended the team for sending openings to Kim that leave room for him to return to the negotiating table.

"I don't think that Kim Jong Un is suicidal," Richardson said. "He may be unpredictable. I don't even think he's irrational. I think there's an end game, and we need to find out what his endgame is."

Meanwhile, he criticized President Donald Trump for his weekend tweet admonishing South Korea for its "talk of appeasement" with North Korea.

"We've got to be careful," Richardson said. "We can't be poking South Korea. They're our main ally in threatening the end of the free-trade agreement. I think we need to be united."

China, however, has leverage in the matter, said the former ambassador, "as 83 percent of all North Korean trade comes through China."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sho    103

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

 

Quote

North Korea has fired a ballistic missile over northern Japan for the second time in less than a month, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday.

The unidentified ballistic missile was launched from the district of Sunan in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, home to the country's main airport, the South Korean military said.
The missile flew about 3,700 kilometers (2,300 miles) and reached an altitude of 770 kilometers (480) miles. It landed in the Pacific Ocean, South Korea said.

 

Kim Jong Un at it again.  Another missle over Japan into the pacific ocean.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,330

Rand Paul's out of the box solution:

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/nuclear-weapons-china-dmz-sanctions/2017/09/14/id/813718/

 

The president has admirably tried to push them towards helping us," but Paul proposed this to Tucker: "North Korea gives up all of their nuclear weapons.

"Dismantle them all and goes basically dormant, if not to a point where they cannot make them.

"In exchange, we say we're going to invite 10,000 Chinese troops to be part of an international force at the DMZ to ensure that South Korea doesn't invade or that the U.S. doesn't invade," Paul continued.

 

 

"China's been hesitant and hasn't really done enough.

"The president has admirably tried to push them towards helping us," but Paul proposed this to Tucker: "North Korea gives up all of their nuclear weapons.

"Dismantle them all and goes basically dormant, if not to a point where they cannot make them.

"In exchange, we say we're going to invite 10,000 Chinese troops to be part of an international force at the DMZ to ensure that South Korea doesn't invade or that the U.S. doesn't invade," Paul continued.

"They don't trust us."

He noted that when Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons in 2003, "what ended up happening was we toppled him anyway.

"Toppling Gaddafi was one of the worst things we could do for rogue nations because now none of them trust us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,330

Trump is pulling no punches at the UN in regards to NK. 

Quote: We may have to totally destroy NK.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-united-nations-speech/2017/09/19/id/814408/

President Donald Trump warned Tuesday that the United States will be forced to "totally destroy" North Korea unless Pyongyang backs down from its nuclear challenge, mocking North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a "rocket man" on a suicide mission.

Loud murmurs filled the green-marbled U.N. General Assembly hall when Trump issued his sternest warning yet to North Korea, whose ballistic missile launches and nuclear tests have rattled the globe.

Unless North Korea backs down, he said, "We will have no choice than to totally destroy North Korea."

"Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime," he said.

He urged United Nations member states to work together to isolate the Kim government until it ceases its "hostile" behavior.

A junior North Korean diplomat remained in the delegation's front-row seat for Trump's speech, the North Korean U.N. mission said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,472
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 


Wow. You can't make this stuff up.

 

It's an odd day in America when the word of the President of the United States has lost all currency. Personally, that is where I'm at. When I see tweets or headlines about something Trump or anyone in his administration have said, my eyes glaze over and I don't even finish reading. I've gotten to the point where I can't even be bothered to finish reading. I just don't care what any of them have to say anymore because they've so badly devalued their words.

 

I'd guess Kelly knows on some level that our international political capital is evaporating. Somewhat ironic that Trump was elected in part because he stumped angrily about how the rest of the world was laughing at us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    7,988

Let's not loose track of where we are at right now.

 

We are still dealing with the after affects of going to war against a country that hadn't attacked us and the government lied to us on why we needed to attack them.  4,486 troops have died.  On top of that, we have had 2,345 troops die in Afghanistan.  over 1,000,000 troops have been wounded in both conflicts.  (all those numbers are still growing)

 

AND.....we are actually sitting here with a psychotic idiot that got out of military service for bogus reasons (and a lot of money) threatening to go in and "destroy" a country that hasn't attacked anyone.

 

I can't express how disgusted I am right now with all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
teachercd    3,206
2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Let's not loose track of where we are at right now.

 

We are still dealing with the after affects of going to war against a country that hadn't attacked us and the government lied to us on why we needed to attack them.  4,486 troops have died.  On top of that, we have had 2,345 troops die in Afghanistan.  over 1,000,000 troops have been wounded in both conflicts.  (all those numbers are still growing)

 

AND.....we are actually sitting here with a psychotic idiot that got out of military service for bogus reasons (and a lot of money) threatening to go in and "destroy" a country that hasn't attacked anyone.

 

I can't express how disgusted I am right now with all of this.

Except its own people.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/dprk-north-korea-south-prison-camp-guard-reveals-what-life-like-punishment-execution-a7710696.html

 

I am with you, there is no reason to even bother with NK.  If they don't try anything with us just let it be.  But man, the poor people living in that f&#39;d up place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×