North Korea says it has developed more-advanced hydrogen bomb - KCNA

[craigt3365]

On 09/05/2017 at 8:31 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt, I don't hate the US. I just reckon that the US government (Washington) has done a lot of stuff, and previously (when Obama, and Bush was there) the media, the media was constantly putting Washington into a highly positive light.

If I did hate the US, if I did hate Washington, well, I can very easily turn up here on ThaiVisa, and constantly say that Washington is looking _____  stupid. Do that on a daily or weekly basis, and that's bearing in mind that the media is constantly attacking Trump. But I'm not doing that. It's just that I find it odd that some people (and some of the media) are using this to try and make Beijing look negative.


So you reckon the US will be involved in any attack on North Korea ? Well yes, I think we all accept and know that. There's no way South Korea can on it's own (without Washington) ,fight a war with North Korea. No way. You say that it's known that Kim won't fire first, I think I agree on that. The problem we've got is, is that Washington might attack Kim, even if Kim does not fire any missiles. Do you think that Washington's frame of mind is "we know that Kim will never fire the first missile, but we're still going to knock him out with our attack".

Actually, if Kim refuses to fire the first missile, do you think that this makes Kim harmless ? To me, if Kim continues to detonate nukes in North Korea, and carries on firing missiles above Japan, well, Kim isn't actually causing real harm. So yes, I reckon Kim is harmless in such a scenario. So, how about let Kim continue to do what he is doing, and don't launch any attack on Kim, and only attack him if he actually fires a missile ?

The media constantly putting Washington in a positive light? From what I've read, which is a lot, they report the good and the bad. Unlike the media in China which is controlled by the government. I sure hope you understand the difference, but I don't think so based on your previous posts.

 

Constantly calling Washington stupid would be trolling, which luckily, is against forum rules.

 

Kim will use his weapons as leverage whenever he needs something. So no, he's far from harmless. Waiting until he fires a missile,  potentially killing millions, is unacceptable to the US, Japan and South Korea. Luckily.

 

Sadly, Kim has left us with no easy answers.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The media constantly putting Washington in a positive light? From what I've read, which is a lot, they report the good and the bad. Unlike the media in China which is controlled by the government. I sure hope you understand the difference, but I don't think so based on your previous posts.

 

Constantly calling Washington stupid would be trolling, which luckily, is against forum rules.

 

Kim will use his weapons as leverage whenever he needs something. So no, he's far from harmless. Waiting until he fires a missile,  potentially killing millions, is unacceptable to the US, Japan and South Korea. Luckily.

 

Sadly, Kim has left us with no easy answers.

Yes, it's important to understand the separation of messengers from the message.  USA has a free press. Neither Russia nor China has one. 

 

I also like to bite the big powers, when it's warranted. Then again approve their actions, when those are warranted as well.

 

Right now I'm not in par with USA actions. The war game has gone too far, which even Putin has pointed out. There is a real danger of escalating this current play to catastrophic event. 

 

I hope sanity will prevail, but I'm not certain it will happen with the current axis of greedy stupid of world leaders. 

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Kim will use his weapons as leverage whenever he needs something. So no, he's far from harmless. Waiting until he fires a missile,  potentially killing millions, is unacceptable to the US, Japan and South Korea. Luckily.

 

4 hours ago, oilinki said:

Right now I'm not in par with USA actions. The war game has gone too far, which even Putin has pointed out. There is a real danger of escalating this current play to catastrophic event.

Right, I ask you guys now, for your opinions on what you reckon should happen now. How about one of the following two options.

Option one. Hope that Kim will not detonate any more nukes in North Korea, and hope that he won't fire any more missiles above Japan. And if he does, well, just leave him alone. Do not launch any attacks on North Korea, North Korea will only be attacked if they fire the first missile. That first missile will be at South Korea, or Japan, or Guam. Do not carry out any pre-emptive strike on Kim.

And there's option two. This one, Kim's already done all this stuff, if he detonates one more nuke, if he fires more missiles above Japan, then, then attack him. Do a massive attack, a pre-emptive strike. Do it, try to knock him and his regime out.


If there's any other options, please put them forward. I certainly have no problems in saying that option one, in my opinion, is certainly the best.

Edited September 6, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Guest]

Option zero.

 

We have been afraid of each nuclear powered country to become insane. It's time for USA to feel the heat, the rest of us have felt for years. 

It was first Russia and Putin, who talked about using tactical nuclear weapons. Then it was Trump who was asking, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them..

There really is not war or nuclear option. There is not such an option, which would not kill us all. Kill us all.. yes, you, me and everyone we love.

 

[Justgrazing]

Why isn't Trumpy using one of the oldest con's in the book to subdue the fat kid by honey-trapping him .. All he's gotta do is call on Melania to do her " patriotic duty " to her adopted homeland .. Send her in wearing the full lingerie kit , she then sweet-talks Kim into telling her the missile codes as she does the " deed " .. And if he continues to then behave give him a free pass to Vegas and as much junk food as he can cram into hiself  .. Gotta be cheaper and less disruptive than spending billions turning N K into a smouldering funeral pyre .. 

[coconuthead]

what will happen is the US will have to stop it's war games somehow while saving face.

 

imagine the uproar if iran and mexico were having "defensive" military drills along the US border.

[baboon]

3 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

Why isn't Trumpy using one of the oldest con's in the book to subdue the fat kid by honey-trapping him .. All he's gotta do is call on Melania to do her " patriotic duty " to her adopted homeland .. Send her in wearing the full lingerie kit , she then sweet-talks Kim into telling her the missile codes as she does the " deed " .. And if he continues to then behave give him a free pass to Vegas and as much junk food as he can cram into hiself  .. Gotta be cheaper and less disruptive than spending billions turning N K into a smouldering funeral pyre .. 

Thanks a lot. I'm bloody starving now...

[Justgrazing]

12 minutes ago, baboon said:

Thanks a lot. I'm bloody starving now...

Haha Sorry mate .. Call Just Eat .. 

[surangw]

where is all the protests  of these turds  contaminating our atmosphere with nuke fallout ( even from tests ) ?

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, oilinki said:

Option zero.

 

We have been afraid of each nuclear powered country to become insane. It's time for USA to feel the heat, the rest of us have felt for years. 

It was first Russia and Putin, who talked about using tactical nuclear weapons. Then it was Trump who was asking, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them..

There really is not war or nuclear option. There is not such an option, which would not kill us all. Kill us all.. yes, you, me and everyone we love.

 

I don't agree. Who's afraid of, say, France using a nuke? Today, most aren't even afraid of Russia using a nuke. But most are afraid of North Korea using a nuke. This current situation came as a result of their threats.

 

I've not seen a video produced by the US depicting a nuclear attack on any nation.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, coconuthead said:

what will happen is the US will have to stop it's war games somehow while saving face.

 

imagine the uproar if iran and mexico were having "defensive" military drills along the US border.

Why would Mexico have military drills on the US border? Millions of their citizens live in the US!  LOL

 

As for Iran, I doubt Mexico nor Canada would be happy to host them.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, coconuthead said:

what will happen is the US will have to stop it's war games somehow while saving face.

 

imagine the uproar if iran and mexico were having "defensive" military drills along the US border.

 

Them war games are also SK's war games. US forces are there by agreement with SK.

 

[simple1]

On 04/09/2017 at 8:26 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Krataiboy, the only thing incorrect about your post, is you said Putin is trading wheat and oil. Putin is actually trading rice and oil with North Korea.

 

N.K. has suffered severe drought which has created the necessity to import more food products this year. Some humanitarian food aid has been provided by the UN, but would assume food aid mainly from China. Out of curiosity where do you get the info Russia is exporting rice to North Korea, in times of famine one would think the likes of soya bean would be more useful.

[tonbridgebrit]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Them war games are also SK's war games. US forces are there by agreement with SK.

 

Morch, you're back.

Do you think it will be a good idea to launch a catastrophic pre-emptive strike on North Korea ? A massive strike, where the intent is to knock out Kim, and his regime, and his nukes ?

Or do you reckon it's far more sensible to simply hope that Kim won't detonate more nukes, and to not attack Kim, and to attack him only AFTER he has fired a missile at South Korea, or Japan, or Guam ?

[steven100]

4 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

to attack him only AFTER he has fired a missile at South Korea, or Japan, or Guam ?

After may be too late .....   best to stop him now ...

will also create alot of jobs. imo

Edited September 7, 2017 by steven100

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

N.K. has suffered severe drought which has created the necessity to import more food products this year. Some humanitarian food aid has been provided by the UN, but would assume food aid mainly from China. Out of curiosity where do you get the info Russia is exporting rice to North Korea, in times of famine one would think the likes of soya bean would be more useful.

Do you think it's good that China is giving food aid to North Korea ? Do you think it would be better to let them starve, and further de-stabilise Kim's regime ?

There's people who reckon we should isolate North Korea even more. These people, they probably reckon that not giving food aid should be part of the isolation effort.

Russia might not be exporting rice to North Korea. But Russia's trade and contact with North Korea allows food to enter into North Korea. If or when you are starving, you're not going to be that fussy or choosy about the stuff being rice or tofu. My point was to say, that there was almost nothing wrong with krataiboy's comment.

[tonbridgebrit]

14 minutes ago, steven100 said:

After may be too late .....   best to stop him now ...

will also create alot of jobs. imo

My comment was made after a certain poster (one who loves to wave Washington's flag) actually said that it's unlikely Kim will fire the first missile. I also reckon it's very unlikely Kim will fire the first missile.

So, you reckon it will be a good idea to launch a catastrophic pre-emptive strike against North Korea ??

Edited September 7, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[steven100]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

My comment was made after a certain poster (one who loves to wave Washington's flag) actually said that it's unlikely Kim will fire the first missile. I also reckon it's very unlikely Kim will fire the first missile.

So, you reckon it will be a good idea to launch a catastrophic pre-emptive strike ??

Well .... do you just continue to let him fire missile off everywhere every couple of weeks and continue to acquire & develop more advanced and a more sophisticated arsenal week after week year after year ...  so his threat continues to grow like a cancer ....  or do you nip it in the bud now so to speak ?  I say nip it.

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, you're back.

Do you think it will be a good idea to launch a catastrophic pre-emptive strike on North Korea ? A massive strike, where the intent is to knock out Kim, and his regime, and his nukes ?

Or do you reckon it's far more sensible to simply hope that Kim won't detonate more nukes, and to not attack Kim, and to attack him only AFTER he has fired a missile at South Korea, or Japan, or Guam ?

 

Yawn.

 

Same old either/or drivel. Reducing every issue into a limited set of inane "options".

 

Never said anything strongly in favor of a US strike on NK. More to do with the chances of pulling it off and achieving goals without major harmful consequences to SK and Japan (not to mention the NK populace). But that doesn't make the "alternative" of doing nothing very appealing.

 

Kim will continue to taunt the US, SK and Japan. Be it nuclear tests, missile tests, aggressive statements and limited direct confrontations with SK. There's nothing to suggest this will change, but there is reason to fear he'll either feel emboldened and overstep the line or that things will get out of hand one way or another. With the ballistic and nuclear capabilities in his possession, there little to be complacent about.

[ExpatOilWorker]

46 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Well .... do you just continue to let him fire missile off everywhere every couple of weeks and continue to acquire & develop more advanced and a more sophisticated arsenal week after week year after year ...  so his threat continues to grow like a cancer ....  or do you nip it in the bud now so to speak ?  I say nip it.

Would you also "nip it" if you had to march across the border and face the on slaughter yourself?

 

Always easy to send somebody else off to war.

[ExpatOilWorker]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

Same old either/or drivel. Reducing every issue into a limited set of inane "options".

 

Never said anything strongly in favor of a US strike on NK. More to do with the chances of pulling it off and achieving goals without major harmful consequences to SK and Japan (not to mention the NK populace). But that doesn't make the "alternative" of doing nothing very appealing.

 

Kim will continue to taunt the US, SK and Japan. Be it nuclear tests, missile tests, aggressive statements and limited direct confrontations with SK. There's nothing to suggest this will change, but there is reason to fear he'll either feel emboldened and overstep the line or that things will get out of hand one way or another. With the ballistic and nuclear capabilities in his possession, there little to be complacent about.

The missile test may just be a distraction. NK have 70 submarines and they could arrive at a coast near you, with a hot payload.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/north-korea-ejection-test-submarine-activity/index.html

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

My comment was made after a certain poster (one who loves to wave Washington's flag) actually said that it's unlikely Kim will fire the first missile. I also reckon it's very unlikely Kim will fire the first missile.

So, you reckon it will be a good idea to launch a catastrophic pre-emptive strike against North Korea ??

Yawn is right, Morch. Same ol' drivel.

 

We all reckon it'd be best if North Korea stops this silliness and focus on feeding his own people. No preemptive strike necessary then.

[Naam]

29 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The missile test may just be a distraction. NK have 70 submarines and they could arrive at a coast near you, with a hot payload.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/north-korea-ejection-test-submarine-activity/index.html

no problem!

Quote

"We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything," Trump said after a reporter asked him about his strategy.

 

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The missile test may just be a distraction. NK have 70 submarines and they could arrive at a coast near you, with a hot payload.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/north-korea-ejection-test-submarine-activity/index.html

 

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

As for "70 submarines"...most are outdated, and only the new model is capable of launching ballistic missiles.I don't think that they can freely roam about without being detected, anyway.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Russia might not be exporting rice to North Korea.

In other words posting misinformation

Edited September 7, 2017 by simple1

[ExpatOilWorker]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

As for "70 submarines"...most are outdated, and only the new model is capable of launching ballistic missiles.I don't think that they can freely roam about without being detected, anyway.

It is a big ocean out there, they can sail nearly wherever they want. A Chinese sub was right under the nose of a US carry fleet in 2006, totally undetected.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It is a big ocean out there, they can sail nearly wherever they want. A Chinese sub was right under the nose of a US carry fleet in 2006, totally undetected.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/

 

It is a big ocean, but normally NK's submarines do not venture that deeply into it. Also, the incident mentioned involved a different submarine, operated by a different navy, and did not occur under similar circumstances. Avoiding the level of current surveillance would be quite a feat. Then there's this thing with quoting a decade old single incident as rationale for a different situation.  

[tonbridgebrit]

On 05/09/2017 at 1:51 AM, craigt3365 said:

The U.S. will definitely be involved in any attacks on North Korea. They are there to support their allies and protect the US. But a nuclear attack won't happen. It's known Kim won't fire first. But will use the threat of attack for negotiations.

 

I know you hate the US and are China's #1 supporter. But it was a massive loss of face to them. Instead of showing off at the BRIC summit, all talk will be about North Korea.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/china-what-can-beijing-do-about-north-korea-donald-trump-kim-jong-un

 

"It's known Kim won't fire first."

And Kim will certainly not fire first. But some people still want to see Washington launch a massive pre-emptive strike against Kim. A pre-emptive strike. A strike that takes place before Kim fires the first missile, even though we all know Kim won't be firing the first missile. 

[MaxYakov]

On 9/3/2017 at 9:04 AM, BuaBS said:

Next step Megaton H-bomb . He only has to hit SK's and/or Japan's nuclear plants with conventional loads to win. Checkmate , USA ....

So, you think this is analogous to a chess match, do you?

 

Do these look like chess pieces to you?

 

 

One question would be, under your scenario, is how many NK and SK other civilians would be casualties? Another question is would it go nuclear? Nuclear deterrence works only when all nuclear-armed players are not self-destructive.

 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"It's known Kim won't fire first."

And Kim will certainly not fire first. But some people still want to see Washington launch a massive pre-emptive strike against Kim. A pre-emptive strike. A strike that takes place before Kim fires the first missile, even though we all know Kim won't be firing the first missile. 

 

The assessment (and no, this isn't the same as "known") is that Kim won't fire first. That is, unless he thinks he's under attack (even if he's not), or his calculations/motivations change, or simply that the assessment is incorrect.

 

Haven't tallied the posts, but think you're one of the main participants in these topics going on about preemptive strikes, even when other posters acknowledge the problem.

 

For some reason, posters protective of NK's regime seem to be unable to entertain the idea of Kim launching his own preemptive strike, whether based on correct reading of the situation or not. Somehow Kim is all rationality, whereas those opposed to him are warmongering madmen.