Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Genghis Khan, Dec 22, 2007.
You're talking about Trump, right?
Nope. We need to take out NK before they take us out.
Right, right... because that's what's happening here.
If NK is at some point actually going to plan taking the US out, it will be because Trump drove them there. Sad. But true.
Bit of a big statement. Also without Trump, I esteem NK would have continued testing their improved missiles. Other countries are afraid of these missiles as well. They have been fired near Japan (couple of hundreds of km away from it).
Would ignoring help? With the current NK leader? I realize China has an important role. Perhaps they can talk with NK while the rest of the world should stay silent even if NK continues to hit closer and closer.
Problem is, there's a lunatic in DC (or currently not - rather in New Jersey, golfing for 17 days) who's not going to keep quiet.
I worry more for near neighbours and Koreans, both North and South, than anything. Of all the adversaries to pick for a standoff of military/political posturing, North Korea comes across as one of the least rational.
Something that's been crossing my mind time and again is this: Trump and Kim are pretty much on the same level in terms of erratic and threatening behaviour. They are both dangerous to peace. Kim probably has nuclear arms - we don't know for sure how many and how dangerous - and Trump definitely does. Kim has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear arms, and so has Trump. If, under these pretexts, a pre-emptive strike against North Korea is justified, then why not against the United States as well? How do we know Trump won't go mad and launch his missiles at some point?
When every different type of strike is seen as the same (launching rockets at mostly military in Syria = the same as bombing Aleppo, Dresden, Rotterdam or Warsaw ), then yes, then it's all bad (in Trump voice ).
But what if a pre-emptive would be directed at NK missile installations?
What could happen? Just wondering. Which are the scenario's?
No more NK launching power left. That problem is "solved" then isn't it?
Then what? A NK mass attack on South Korea? With what? Millions of men with sticks vs a modern army, supported by the USA?
But the same logic would apply towards the United States, wouldn't it? Why shouldn't we be afraid of Trump pushing the button some day?
It is highly unlikely that he will at some point launch nuclear missiles against some perceived or imagined enemy, but I consider it possible. Trump is a person who objectively lacks qualities normal people have: Empathy, a sense of decency, a capability of self-reflection, emotional intelligence and self-control. He does not value the political system of the United States and has proven that he will circumvent any legal obstacle in his way. If he decides at some point that he wants to use nuclear weapons, he will try to find a way, such as firing everybody who advises against it and replace them with mooches.
He is a greater threat to the world than Kim Jong-Un is.
I see that. Although maybe I am more afraid for his impact on the long run (climate change, polarization, how he is able to keep America ignorant, by his gift of making people think all the media are liars).
NK cannot take the U.S. out. Even if they sent 20 missiles, with success rates that they have, without any evasion technology (they're trying to mimic SU stuff from the 1970s), one reaching continental U.S. would be a success.
In case of war, forget about the Asian Tiger of South Korea. There are 20 thousand artillery pieces in Seoul range.
But if you drop it first, again, on anyone, I'd pray for Russia and China to mass wipe a lot of US military. All the friends and family I have in that country, be damned. You actually used the damn thing, and you had more trigger happy presidents than anybody else in the same league, all while having a people vote on who takes the command! You voted in Nixon who wanted to nuke Vietnam and Cambodia and now you have Trump who wants to nuke North Korea.
To be fair, the American people didn't actually vote for Trump. Their electoral college did. The majority of the American people voted for Clinton.
Agreed and you should never retaliate against people, anyway.
I get what you're saying but I don't agree with it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trump has only taken military actions that were recommended by his advisers. He likes Generals and so far he actually listens to them. I think he will continue to talk tough to NK but won't fire a nuke unless Mattis tells him too.
I don't see Trump doing anything that's completely at odds with what his advisers and his party would want, and at the end of the day, he does still care about personal image and Twitter kudos, if nothing else. My bigger worry is that making his mouth go will escalate the situation to the point that conflict in some form closer to North Korea is inevitable. I don't really believe that American civilians are going to get hurt, but I'd hate to be anywhere bordering North Korean territory at the moment. Or indeed a North Korean civilian. Worst of all, this still doesn't feel like it's genuinely about a response to a threat to the rest of the world, it's more like a PR stunt that's treading on dangerous ground.
Kim has been threatening the US long before Trump took office so NK would be doing this whether he took all this action or not. Trump is not going to stand idly by and wait for them to fire at us or our allies. And yes, the surrounding areas around NK are a HUGE factor. The strike on NK has to be such a clean one that almost all of their weaponry is taken out so they can do as little damage as possible.
Also, the DEFCON Warning System has again moved the level from 5 to 4. Here are the reasons for that:
Sooo.... Charlottesville, anyone?
I'm impressed at the ability of the President to ensure the conversation is about him and not about what matters.
Separate names with a comma.