Trump says 'only one thing will work' with North Korea

[F4UCorsair]

  39 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How about this:

I doubt the NK artillery has a range of more than, say, 100 miles

Move 25M people south over say a year

Inform China and Russia what the plan is.

Demolish all nuclear facilities and weaponry in NK using conventional weapons such as cruise missiles.

Reunite NK and SK

USA then moves out of SK and Japan

 

I couldn't quote you grouse, so had to cut and paste.

 

I agree that up to the last line is possible grouse, but SK and Japan are way too strategically important for the US to pull out of their bases in those countries.

 

The US won't have to use more than conventional weapons to wipe out all areas within NK that they see as a threat, so as little 'collateral' damage as possible will result, and it will happen within minutes of the decision being made.  It's my guess that there are missile capable submarines standing off Japan right now, and they'll hit hard and fast.   It's all looking bad for KJU, but for the NK people, there is a much better life ahead.

[Golgota]

4 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

  39 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How about this:

I doubt the NK artillery has a range of more than, say, 100 miles

Move 25M people south over say a year

Inform China and Russia what the plan is.

Demolish all nuclear facilities and weaponry in NK using conventional weapons such as cruise missiles.

Reunite NK and SK

USA then moves out of SK and Japan

 

I couldn't quote you grouse, so had to cut and paste.

 

I agree that up to the last line is possible grouse, but SK and Japan are way too strategically important for the US to pull out of their bases in those countries.

 

The US won't have to use more than conventional weapons to wipe out all areas within NK that they see as a threat, so as little 'collateral' damage as possible will result, and it will happen within minutes of the decision being made.  It's my guess that there are missile capable submarines standing off Japan right now, and they'll hit hard and fast.   It's all looking bad for KJU, but for the NK people, there is a much better life ahead.

Tell that to the Iraki and Lybian people, I am sure they disagree

[balo]

It's just words that comes out of his mouth. nothing to worry about. Kim is having a laugh.  

[jadee]

I'm British but I try to keep up with US politics and thinking back to the US election last year, I honestly believed that Hillary would have been more likely to let NK escalate and that Trump would have been more pragmatic. I couldn't have been more wrong. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, midas said:

 

But sometimes " sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya " is considerably preferable to killing millions of innocent people in countries that are purportedly America's allies and rendering huge areas of planet Earth unlivable for a very long time

 

But it is not just about sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya. It is also about allowing Kim more time to develop his military capabilities, up to a point where there would truly be no alternative. And as repeated on many posts and topics, it is unlikely that the USA will use nuclear weapons, while currently Kim's ability to reliably deliver such weapons is still questionable.

 

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, ljd1308 said:

That's because you don't know where to look.

 

There is a reason it is being reported so much that they shot weapons over Japan(rather than in space....above the world). It is so people like you jump on board and agree that NK should be destroyed.

 

Do you really think that the US(and other countries) have not had weapons flying over other countries? You just haven't heard about it for the most part because the US media don't want to draw your attention to it.

But if you really don't think it happens you are extremely naive....or stupid

 

You are seriously suggesting USA secretly fires missiles over other countries (presumably while they are sleeping?).  Nonsense post with NO supporting evidence but I shall resist suggesting you are STUPID as I have a bit more posting class. Please keep it CIVIL.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, baboon said:

Signed it and withdrew, as was their right under the terms of the treaty.

The world also cannot have nations armed to the teeth throwing their weight around and holding other nations to standards they have no intention of keeping to themselves. 

 

Their withdrawl from the NPT was far less straightforward then described. This was discussed and referenced on many previous topics. Other than the usual off topic issues - what standards, pertaining to nuclear weapons are expected of Kim's regime but are not kept by other countries involved?

Edited October 8, 2017 by Morch

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Their withdrawl from the NPT was far less straightforward then described. This was discussed and referenced on many previous topics. Other than the usual off topic issues - what standards, pertaining to nuclear weapons are expected of Kim's regime but are not kept by other countries involved?

 

I can understand that all should be held to the same standard, and, they are not. But what's to be done?  if the UN means anything at all it must be THE place for all to agree that Nukes are insanity. But there is always the risk of a rogue nation like NK spoiling the party and the risk of doing 'nothing' is we wake up one bright, shiny morning and it's not the suns warmth we feel but some ghastly 'CNN Special' on WW3.

[nontabury]

5 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I'm pretty sure Kim will be no more concerned about Donalds latest burst of hot air than he has been so far. Given the potential damage and loss of life in Seoul, he knows a military strike is extremely unlikely.Tillerson has by far the better idea, which is to find some sort of diplomatic solution, regardless of how difficult it is to find.

Diplomatic solutions have achieved what,over the last 30yrs? If previous US Presidents had come up to the mark, then we would not be in the situation now, were NK is now at the point of being able to nuclear attack the USA.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Bullies don't 'get' diplomatic solutions. Simply put a red line and enforce it.

 

Are you willing to go to Seoul and bet your life on that.

 

Trump is willing to obliterate 25 MILLION N Koreans and an unknown number of S Koreans, Chinese and other nationalities to appease HIS vanity and desire to start a war that the US military will have to finish.

 

IMHO it is past the time that those nice young men in their clean white coats took Trump away and put him in the little room with rubber walls for the safety of the civilised world.

 

If HE starts a war with N Korea then he should immediately be impeached and treated as a war criminal because he will survive.

 

If KJU starts the war the same rules should apply IF he survives.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

By your logic North Korea has the right to defend themselves from the 50 plus years of US threats.

 

The USA did not directly attack North Korea since the Korea war. What you or Kim may consider "threats" can be construed as "pretty much whatever". On the other hand, North Korea did attack South Korea (and USA forces) on numerous occasions. As in actual aggression, rather than "threats". And North Korea isn't defending "itself", rather it is Kim defending himself.

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, BuaBS said:

It's high time the US gets hit on their own soil when they attack yet another foreign country like they did in the last 60 years or so.

 

Can't wait for the next time you post "warmonger" or some other nonsense. Guess all that faux care for human lives is dependent on nationality.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The USA did not directly attack North Korea since the Korea war. What you or Kim may consider "threats" can be construed as "pretty much whatever". On the other hand, North Korea did attack South Korea (and USA forces) on numerous occasions. As in actual aggression, rather than "threats". And North Korea isn't defending "itself", rather it is Kim defending himself.

 

 

 

The US has issued numerous threats over the years, I am not going to continue with this childish who threatened who first nonsense, all I was doing is applying your own logic to North Korea, they have been threatened therefore they have the right to defend themselves, and they are currently sticking to the rhetoric of defence rather than aggression, unlike Trump, who is currently mixing the two.  And no, it is not just Kim, as of today also his sister has a key role, and it has always been the whole clan, Kim is just the head man, most countries do have someone in charge and these people in charge represent their country, you may enjoy the fantasy that without Kim the North Koreans would welcome democracy and join the South but it isn't actually likely, they are indoctrinated, it is probably much like the Islamic extremists, taking out their leadership will not convert them and they will continue to fight.

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

How about this:

 

I doubt the NK artillery has a range of more than, say, 100 miles

 

Move 25M people south over say a year

 

Inform China and Russia what the plan is.

 

Demolish all nuclear facilities and weaponry in NK using conventional weapons such as cruise missiles.

 

Reunite NK and SK

 

USA then moves out of SK and Japan

 

There's no conceivable way of carrying out such mass evacuation and relocation. Especially not in countries which are not dictatorships. Regardless of the whole post being nonsensical - a related question was raised on a previous topic: how would Kim react to even a partial evacuation of Seoul?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Except they don't have the capacity.  They may be able to hit Kodiak island if they're lucky, but all they'd kill there would be a couple of bears and a fisherman.

 

Remember the Iraqi wars?  Not long ago.  Saddam had the world believing he had the 3rd or 4th mightiest army in the world.  He had scuds.  He (supposedly) had a million man army.  He had hundreds of the latest/best Russian tanks.    He had an air force supplied by, and trained by the Russians.   

 

How effective was his military?  They were able to drive down to Kuwait City and take it over.  But a 200 man biker gang could have done that.  When the US-lead 'Coalition' went in there with guns blazing, the entire weight of the Iraqi Army couldn't do any more harm than your Aunt may with a sockful of nickels.  First their air force was knocked out without them firing a shot.  Then their hundreds of Russian tanks were knocked out like a carnival plastic duck shoot.  Not one bullet got within a quarter mile of any attacking US tanks.  

 

That sort of scenario is going to be on the minds of Pentagon brass.  Is the N.Korean military a paper tiger or a soggy paper tiger?  I think the world will find out before Thanksgiving.

 

What you didn't mention was the amout of time, manpower and materials spent in building up to that war and the fact that Sassam did nothing to oppose it.

 

To get the same amount of men and material together will now take much longer as there is not so much shipping space available and the only place to put it will be in S Korea.

 

The S Koreans won't be too happy about that and IMHO Kim will not sit doing nothing and let the buildup happen.

 

He will most probably fire the first shots so that Trump can blame him for starting the war, whereas if Trump doesn't build up the forces in S Korea war amy not happen.

[baboon]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Their withdrawl from the NPT was far less straightforward then described. This was discussed and referenced on many previous topics. Other than the usual off topic issues - what standards, pertaining to nuclear weapons are expected of Kim's regime but are not kept by other countries involved?

You deliberately misrepresented what I said as you have a habit of doing and aren't interested in the answer anyway, save to nitpick. No thanks.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Sure, just move Seoul over the course of a year, thats realistic.

 

Another small problem with your idea, having your military bases destroyed doesn't change your allegiance, if we took out all of the US's bases would you expect the Americans to be happy to unite with China?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing particular binding Americans and Chinese. South Koreans and North Koreans are a different case. The assumption that indoctrination by Kim's regime will override anything else is not necessarily correct.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

You deliberately misrepresented what I said as you have a habit of doing and aren't interested in the answer anyway, save to nitpick. No thanks.

 

I haven't misrepresented anything, as can be seen in your original post. Rather it is you making up this inane excuse whenever contradictions and inaccuracies are pointed out.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Golgota said:

As usual when US goes to war in modern history : not them

 

Not unique to the USA - which other country going to war "picked up the pieces"?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ljd1308 said:

 

When was the last time the US actually won a war? 

 

A common slogan which doesn't say a whole lot.

 

Would depend how one defines winning a war. As in destroying a conventional army? As in "nation building"? As in successfully dealing with insurgency? Fighting an asymmetrical force?

 

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is nothing particular binding Americans and Chinese. South Koreans and North Koreans are a different case. The assumption that indoctrination by Kim's regime will override anything else is not necessarily correct.

 

There is also nothing binding North and South Korea apart from geography. The indoctrination is not by Kim's regime, it is three generations deep and was very much in place the last time America lost a war against them, they will not take regime change lying down, the intelligence has told us that for 50 years.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, BuaBS said:

NK top brass and Kim , are standing around a map and pointing to all the spots they'd love to hit for retaliation.

 

And they could fantasize all day long. That is, unless given enough time to have reliable delivery capability.

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A common slogan which doesn't say a whole lot.

 

Would depend how one defines winning a war. As in destroying a conventional army? As in "nation building"? As in successfully dealing with insurgency? Fighting an asymmetrical force?

 

 

Yes, America needs to invent new definitions to claim to have won one.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I haven't misrepresented anything, as can be seen in your original post. Rather it is you making up this inane excuse whenever contradictions and inaccuracies are pointed out.

 

You misrepresent other peoples posts on a continuous basis.

[madusa]

An attack on north korea is an attack on china. Korea and china are brothers in arms, they fought together during the korean war.

The world is waiting for Trump to push the button, what? No balls? Just talk? Oh, f.. k off then.

At least for Bush, he attacked Iraq when he said he would. He got balls.

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And they could fantasize all day long. That is, unless given enough time to have reliable delivery capability.

 

You're fantasising, they have the ability to strike a megatropolis with chemical and biological weapons, but perhaps you only care if they can reach the US.

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I can understand that all should be held to the same standard, and, they are not. But what's to be done?  if the UN means anything at all it must be THE place for all to agree that Nukes are insanity. But there is always the risk of a rogue nation like NK spoiling the party and the risk of doing 'nothing' is we wake up one bright, shiny morning and it's not the suns warmth we feel but some ghastly 'CNN Special' on WW3.

 

Guess it comes down to how much of an "all-or-nothing" approach one goes for. I think that having a largely acceptable, if not all encompassing, international agreement such as the NPT is better than a free-for-all situation. The NPT is not about abolishing nuclear weapons, but about limiting proliferation. It is a step in the right direction. Throwing it out as useless, because it doesn't immediately achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world is bogus.

 

Wishing for the establishment of nuclear weapons, while supporting Kim's nuclear ambitions is a rather twisted position. Regardless of how one may feel about the USA's nuclear arsenal (or for that matter, the PRC's or Russia's etc) - Kim having his own personal nukes doesn't contribute an iota to achieving this goal.

 

And true enough, very hard (if not impossible) to control and limit related knowledge and know-how. To a degree, the NPT actually does a pretty good job on that.

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, madusa said:

An attack on north korea is an attack on china. Korea and china are brothers in arms, they fought together during the korean war.

The world is waiting for Trump to push the button, what? No balls? Just talk? Oh, f.. k off then.

At least for Bush, he attacked Iraq when he said he would. He got balls.

 

Well, they fell out since then, they do not have a particular allegiance to North Korea but they do have a vested interest in maintaining peace in the region and keeping North Korea afloat as they se that as a way to maintain peace and order for themselves.  They have stated that they are willing to do what they can to maintain peace whether the US likes it or not, if that means protecting North Korea with troops and arms then they may well just do that, they have a lot to lose, they share a border and an all out war would mean an influx of refugees and probably misiles and bombs hitting them by mistake, even nuclear fallout, they will defend their border for sure but they may well go beyond that and they have been practicing for going into the North so it does seem quite likely that they would find they felt it beneficial to themselves.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Are you willing to go to Seoul and bet your life on that.

 

Trump is willing to obliterate 25 MILLION N Koreans and an unknown number of S Koreans, Chinese and other nationalities to appease HIS vanity and desire to start a war that the US military will have to finish.

 

IMHO it is past the time that those nice young men in their clean white coats took Trump away and put him in the little room with rubber walls for the safety of the civilised world.

 

If HE starts a war with N Korea then he should immediately be impeached and treated as a war criminal because he will survive.

 

If KJU starts the war the same rules should apply IF he survives.

 

The USA will not simply obliterate the whole of North Korea and all the North Koreans. Scaremongering at its best.

[F4UCorsair]

48 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Are you willing to go to Seoul and bet your life on that.

 

Trump is willing to obliterate 25 MILLION N Koreans and an unknown number of S Koreans, Chinese and other nationalities to appease HIS vanity and desire to start a war that the US military will have to finish.

 

IMHO it is past the time that those nice young men in their clean white coats took Trump away and put him in the little room with rubber walls for the safety of the civilised world.

 

If HE starts a war with N Korea then he should immediately be impeached and treated as a war criminal because he will survive.

 

If KJU starts the war the same rules should apply IF he survives.

billd, the President doesn't unilaterally make a decision to start a war.  He is advised my literally dozens of people, and he is not able to just declare a war, and mobilize the troops himself.   It's not that simple.  

 

Think that if you wish, but it is erroneous.

 

'Obliterating 25 million North Koreans' is just fantasy.  As with most military strikes, there will regrettably be civilian casualties, but 25 million, the entire population??  

 

A preemptive strike is quite a different thing from a declared war, and there are circumstances under which it is justified.  KJU is facilitating those circumstances.

 

This link is worth a look

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/preemptive.shtml

Edited October 8, 2017 by F4UCorsair