Trump: military option for North Korea not preferred, but would be 'devastating'

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Not avoiding any question, not even your inane loaded one.

 

The issue isn't how effective South Korea's artillery is, but rather the ways it is designed to be put to use in combat. And destruction of North Korea's capital, or intentionally inflicting mass civilian casualties aren't among them. North Korea's artillery is a different story. Then there's the matter of geography and distances.

Yes, avoidance. You don't get to decide the issue.

 

I'm done here with you,

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, avoidance. You don't get to decide the issue.

 

I'm done here with you,

 

More like toys out of the pram.

 

 

[dunroaming]

6 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Trump stop talking. Start acting. 

Well start acting like a grown-up for a start.  Keep your mouth shut and any statements concerning NK should not come from your mouth but from the people around you who are clearly on a different page completely.

 

[sweatalot]

38 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well start acting like a grown-up for a start.  Keep your mouth shut and any statements concerning NK should not come from your mouth but from the people around you who are clearly on a different page completely.

 

"... on a different page completely "

which means incapable of solving the problem

And btw I said start acting, I did not say destroy NK.

 

When you get emotional get emotional against kimmi, not me

 

Your opinion is different from mine. That is ok.

But don't be offending

Edited September 27, 2017 by sweatalot

[dunroaming]

6 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

"... on a different page completely "

which means incapable of solving the problem

 

Your opinion is different from mine. That is ok.

But don't be offending

Was I offending you with my post?  Can't see that at all.  Yes we have different views and if I was offending anyone with my post I would hope that it would Trump.  No offence meant to you at all.  We are all spectators here.

[maxx58]

There is no military option. Period. The loss of life would be catastrophic - especially on the Korean peninsula and possibly Japan.

 

The world has to accept a military nuclear powered North Korea. Kim Jong Un learned from the fate of Gaddafi and Saddam and will never relinquish those weapons.

 

Is it any better that a backward country of religious nuts like Pakistan has these bombs?

 

Bring American troops home and let North and South Korea settle their differences by themselves!

 

 

[craigt3365]

24 minutes ago, maxx58 said:

There is no military option. Period. The loss of life would be catastrophic - especially on the Korean peninsula and possibly Japan.

 

The world has to accept a military nuclear powered North Korea. Kim Jong Un learned from the fate of Gaddafi and Saddam and will never relinquish those weapons.

 

Is it any better that a backward country of religious nuts like Pakistan has these bombs?

 

Bring American troops home and let North and South Korea settle their differences by themselves!

Yes, no military options are good!  But we don't have to accept a nuclear powered NK either.  Quit using Gaddafi and Saddam as examples.  Gaddafi gave up his nukes, but was done in by his own people.  Saddam never had them and would have never been  allowed to have them.  Just like Iran.

 

Leave the troops there.  How about NK become a good citizen of our global community?  Right....

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   The topic is about NK.

 

[iReason]

For the arm-chair/keyboard warriors:

 

 

[Morch]

18 hours ago, maxx58 said:

There is no military option. Period. The loss of life would be catastrophic - especially on the Korean peninsula and possibly Japan.

 

The world has to accept a military nuclear powered North Korea. Kim Jong Un learned from the fate of Gaddafi and Saddam and will never relinquish those weapons.

 

Is it any better that a backward country of religious nuts like Pakistan has these bombs?

 

Bring American troops home and let North and South Korea settle their differences by themselves!

 

 

 

It's not that there are no military options, but that they are both problematic to pull off and likely to result in massive casualties. What you essentially offer is caving in to Kim's threats - accept his regime's nuclear capabilities as a given, withdraw support from South Korea, and hope for the best.

 

While Pakistan's possession of military nuclear capability isn't a positive thing, it doesn't imply that it's a great idea having more countries having them.

 

Pulling USA troops would remove a key element deterring Kim's aggression. It would leave South Korea at a distinct disadvantage, and may result in a regional ballistic and nuclear arms race. USA troops, by the way, are stationed in South Korea by agreement. If South Korea felt their presence unnecessary or even counter-productive, they wouldn't be there.

[maxx58]

It's not that there are no military options, but that they are both problematic to pull off and likely to result in massive casualties.

                Huh?  So there are no RATIONAL military options.

 

 What you essentially offer is caving in to Kim's threats - accept his regime's nuclear capabilities as a given, withdraw support from South Korea, and hope for the best.

                It is a given - he has nuclear weapons. 

 

Pulling USA troops would remove a key element deterring Kim's aggression

                 While both sides are in a pissing contest, I believe that the US is more of the aggressor and Kim is replying in kind.

 

 If South Korea felt their presence unnecessary or even counter-productive, they wouldn't be there.

                 Let's be real here. The reason that the US is still in SK and Japa is in order to try and contain China.

[Morch]

 

@maxx58

 

Whether existing military options are "rational" is conditional upon other options and possible outcomes. For example, some might argue that caving in to Kim's threats could lead to even worse scenarios.

 

That Kim's regime is currently in possession of nuclear weapons is indeed a given. But it does not imply things are not reversible or that the development of improved delivery systems is inevitable. What Kim got now is a limited version of what he's after. What you're suggesting is stepping back, and giving him space and time to fully achieve his goals.

 

With regard to USA troops in South Korea, your beliefs are immaterial to the issue. Pulling USA troops would leave South Korea with less of a deterrent. As much as some tend to ignore it, South Korea is a "side". If South Korea was to ask USA to pull off its troops, it would happen. Same as it happened elsewhere.

 

By the way, there's an easy to use quote function, makes it clearer to discern who posted what. Thanks.

[maxx58]

Sorry for the confused reply. I'm new to using the quotes.

 

44 minutes ago, maxx58 said:

Whether existing military options are "rational" is conditional upon other options and possible outcomes.

Like what? You have yet to define any alternatives.

 

45 minutes ago, maxx58 said:

some might argue that caving in to Kim's threats could lead to even worse scenarios.

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Iraq. How did that work out?

 

All you have done is knock down my points without presenting any cogent alternative solution.

 

Anyway, thanks for the tip about the quote function.

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, maxx58 said:

Sorry for the confused reply. I'm new to using the quotes.

 

Like what? You have yet to define any alternatives.

 

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Iraq. How did that work out?

 

All you have done is knock down my points without presenting any cogent alternative solution.

 

Anyway, thanks for the tip about the quote function.

 

There is no requirement to provide a definitive alternative, in order to point out issues with positions aired. As is often repeated on these topics - there are no good answers, even if some wish to pretend otherwise.

 

When posters opine on the plausibility of military options, the views are usually based either on nothing much, or by applying past instances and known capabilities. That conditions and capabilities are not static, is something lost on most. So in terms of what can be done, take Iraq (not the insurgency part, but the bit where Saddam's forces were routed) and extrapolate from there. Them artillery barrels aimed at Seoul are not a new issue - and in all probability, there are several ways and plans how to deal with them. I will not speculate on the degree current means available can significantly offset the expected and oft talked about destruction.

 

Not quite sure what was your point about Iraq and caving in to Kim's threats. Kim does have nuclear weapons, does make overt threats and has a history of aggression toward South Korea. If this was a reference to the situation in Iraq post-Saddam, then no - the two countries are nothing alike, very different circumstances.

 

And keep working on then quoting skills, you'll get the hang of it

[maxx58]

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Cheers