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

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

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.

 

 

You claim that North Korea was threatened "numerous times". What exactly constitutes a credible "threat" under this statement is anyone's guess.

 

North Korea isn't threatened, realistically or otherwise, by anyone. More accurately, Kim's regime is. That distinction. Whether it's Kim alone or his inner circle as well makes no difference.

 

I have said nothing about North Koreans embracing democracy, or falling into the arms of their "liberators" - just pointed out that assuming the exact opposite scenario is not necessarily well grounded in reality. Drawing parallels between Islamic extremism and North Korea is a rather far-fetched notion .

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

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.

 

Nothing in particular other than language, geography and having a shared (if albeit distant) history. All of which were absent from your former comparison. Things worked (if not perfectly) for Germany. Guess that "indoctrination" is the new bogeyman on these topics now.

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

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

 

Standard deflection. The above implies to pretty much any modern conflict, regardless of the USA's involvement.

 

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You misrepresent other peoples posts on a continuous basis.

 

Your sole contribution to many of these topics is making the above comment.

Get a life.

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

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.

 

If it wasn't all too clear (as it should have been considering the context of previous posts) the reference was to hitting targets within the USA. I am well aware that Kim is capable of hitting nearer targets, even those in countries which are not "threatening" him. Somehow, Kim extending threats to neighbors is deemed acceptable by some posters.

 

[billd766]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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

 

That isn't what Trump is saying though and it will be HIS finger on the button and not yours.

 

Are these links good enough for you? He said it at the United Nations assembly or did you miss that part of his speech?

 

https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-united-nations-north-korea/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/19/donald-trump-threatens-totally-destroy-north-korea-un-speech

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trump-at-un-rocket-man-kim-jong-un-is-on-a-suicide-mission.html

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trump-at-un-rocket-man-kim-jong-un-is-on-a-suicide-mission.html

[Morch]

Just now, billd766 said:

 

That isn't what Trump is saying though and it will be HIS finger on the button and not yours.

 

Are these links good enough for you? He said it at the United Nations assembly or did you miss that part of his speech?

 

https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-united-nations-north-korea/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/19/donald-trump-threatens-totally-destroy-north-korea-un-speech

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trump-at-un-rocket-man-kim-jong-un-is-on-a-suicide-mission.html

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trump-at-un-rocket-man-kim-jong-un-is-on-a-suicide-mission.html

 

Yeah....and if we've learned anything about Trump's presidency it would be that gap between words and actions. Sorry if I don't buy into this particular instance of scaremongering.

[Kieran00001]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You claim that North Korea was threatened "numerous times". What exactly constitutes a credible "threat" under this statement is anyone's guess.

 

North Korea isn't threatened, realistically or otherwise, by anyone. More accurately, Kim's regime is. That distinction. Whether it's Kim alone or his inner circle as well makes no difference.

 

I have said nothing about North Koreans embracing democracy, or falling into the arms of their "liberators" - just pointed out that assuming the exact opposite scenario is not necessarily well grounded in reality. Drawing parallels between Islamic extremism and North Korea is a rather far-fetched notion .

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of a credible threat would be that of Nixon's threat for North Korea to not see another leader, at least they took it as credible as they shot down their plane, it only has to be credible in the eyes of North Korea, not your eyes.

 

Of course North Korea is threatened, it would be North Korean people who did the fighting, when Kim theatens the US is it only Washington being threatened or could that nuke just possibly also kill an innicemt American?

 

It is a much safer assumption to make that they will not take an invasion as a liberation than the opposite, we are talking about people's lives here.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nothing in particular other than language, geography and having a shared (if albeit distant) history. All of which were absent from your former comparison. Things worked (if not perfectly) for Germany. Guess that "indoctrination" is the new bogeyman on these topics now.

 

The stark difference being that when unification happened for East Germany that was what the people were asking for, do try to think just a little.

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Standard deflection. The above implies to pretty much any modern conflict, regardless of the USA's involvement.

 

 

Some wars do not see the "victors" retreat leaving behind an ongoing war.

[billd766]

29 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

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

 

What have ethics, politicians and war have to do with each other.

 

quote "'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?? "

 

Read my post #94 about what Trump said at the UN General assembly where he threatens to completely destroy N Korea and tell me who is having the fantasy.

 

Regretably there will be civilian casualties?

 

How many civilian casualties before you start regretting? 1, 5, 10, 50, 1,000, 10,000, more than that?

 

"We are sorry that we killed and maimed you but wasn't really our fault that you got in the way".

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

An example of a credible threat would be that of Nixon's threat for North Korea to not see another leader, at least they took it as credible as they shot down their plane, it only has to be credible in the eyes of North Korea, not your eyes.

 

Of course North Korea is threatened, it would be North Korean people who did the fighting, when Kim theatens the US is it only Washington being threatened or could that nuke just possibly also kill an innicemt American?

 

It is a much safer assumption to make that they will not take an invasion as a liberation than the opposite, we are talking about people's lives here.

 

 

 

I don't think that you are North Korean, or that you can credibly speak for North Koreans. As to what Kim sees as a threat, one could ask whether this means a threat to his political survival or to the country as a whole. Obviously, for Kim both things are somewhat merged. Whether this sentiment is actually as prevalent and irreversible as advertised is more guesswork than fact.

 

 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The stark difference being that when unification happened for East Germany that was what the people were asking for, do try to think just a little.

 

I don't assume to know what the people of North Korea want. You seem to have a clear insight as to their wishes. Pity no one actually asks them.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Some wars do not see the "victors" retreat leaving behind an ongoing war.

 

More deflections. How is that unique to the USA?

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that you are North Korean, or that you can credibly speak for North Koreans. As to what Kim sees as a threat, one could ask whether this means a threat to his political survival or to the country as a whole. Obviously, for Kim both things are somewhat merged. Whether this sentiment is actually as prevalent and irreversible as advertised is more guesswork than fact.

 

 

 

And it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference either way as he will give the same order to the troops whether he personally feels threatened or he feels his country is threatened.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't assume to know what the people of North Korea want. You seem to have a clear insight as to their wishes. Pity no one actually asks them.

 

But they do ask them, we have 300,000 North Koreans who have escaped to ask, we know the sentiment very well indeed.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More deflections. How is that unique to the USA?

 

Nobody said it was unique, but some countries have outright won wars, that would be unique in recent American history if that happened for them.

[Thaidream]

The war in Europe; Afghanistan; Iraq and Vietnam have nothing to do with the Korean situation and anyone wishing a strike on America is simply showing their anti American bias.Can't we keep hatred out of these discussions?

 

The only historical reference that matters is the Korean War and the facts are clear- NKorea attacked South Korea and the US responded not with an American attack but under the auspices of the United Nations of which there were many Nations at war in Korea including the UK; Canada and even Thailand. Once the US had reached the Yalu River (the Chinese border) China entered and pushed the Americans and South Koreans back to the current dividing line -approximately the 38th Parallel,  No peace was ever signed and an armistice was under the guise of the United Nations. There still exists a United Nations Command.  The UN Command Rear is located in Japan and consists of 8 Nations-

 

 The UNC (Rear) is composed of eight nations accredited to the United Nations Command: Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, The Philippines, Thailand, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The question now is whether the United States will continue to operate under the UN Command and seek a UN resolution to initiate action against NKorea.  The pretext for such action would be a NKorea nuclear missile launch test that sails over Japan (or another country)  and explodes in the Pacific Ocean.  There would be a question of Japanese sovereignty as well as fallout that would affect many Nations.  Such a launch by NKorea would trigger a huge Worldwide reaction.

 

Then there is the scenario in which an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile is mated with a nuclear weapon and is being fueled and on the launch pad in NKorea with a potential target of the US or an American ally.  The intelligence is  exact- the Us knows where it will land. Shall the US allow it to fire and put millions of Americans or Japanese at risk?  For the US to take it out and initiate a first strike- the US would have to have evidence that cannot be challenged by anyone else and would be considered a grave and immediate danger to life. How would you like to have to make that decision?

 

These are just a few of the issues the American military has to deal with.  You all can wax pro or con on whether the US should invade and the outcome but no one really knows how it will all play out.  

 

I do know this- that an attack on the US by NKorea triggers Nato and  Anzus so all of our countries are in it.  An attack on one is an attack on all.  Anyonw who has any sense does not want a war in which it is estimated casualties will be in the millions.

 

In addition, anyone who knows anything about the US military structure knows that Donald Trump cannot start a war because he 'feels like it'.  Trump maybe like a bull in a chinashop but the US military is well disciplined and professional and are fully aware of the consequences. Trump is being bombastic because he wants to push NKorea to either attack or negotiate.

 

Unless NKorea has a death wish they will eventually come to the table  -as well as China and Russia. The ball is in NKorea's court. If Kim is smart- he will know the time to talk has come and he will not try and test a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere.

 

The goal has to be the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and Kim has to realize he cannot continue to threaten anyone with a nuclear holocaust.  China and Russia need to step up and get Kim under control and take control of NKorea's nuclear arsenal and the Us needs to plan on leaving SKorea under the proper circumstances. Once the nuclear issue is controlled N and S Korea can negotiate when and if the reunify.

[carbine1125]

8 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

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

Yes, for.sure Trump the bully does not.understand diplomatic solutions.

[Grouse]

5 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?  

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think moving half the population to the south of the peninsula is un-do-able . However judging from Puerto Rico maybe beyond the Americans. It would of course be temporary.

 

Anyway, just thinking outside the box.

 

I think with Kim dynasty gone and their nuclear capability gone it might allow America to go home with some pride for a change and enable Korean reunification ( just like Germany)

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

And it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference either way as he will give the same order to the troops whether he personally feels threatened or he feels his country is threatened.

 

It makes a difference with regard to justifications of his actions and stance.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But they do ask them, we have 300,000 North Koreans who have escaped to ask, we know the sentiment very well indeed.

 

Was there a general updates pole? Were all of them of the exact same opinion?

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I don't think moving half the population to the south of the peninsula is un-do-able . However judging from Puerto Rico maybe beyond the Americans. It would of course be temporary.

 

Anyway, just thinking outside the box.

 

I think with Kim dynasty gone and their nuclear capability gone it might allow America to go home with some pride for a change and enable Korean reunification ( just like Germany)

Sure but They must be replaced with fake South Koreans so that North Korea will not notice

. I propose they put watermelons on their pillows with with map heads for hair, and announcing to the world that all South Koreans are taking a long nup this week,  

 Then at night they can all tipi toe out. 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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?

Sorry you find my idea nonsensical. I'll forgive your rudeness.

 

In WW2 soviets moved most of their industry East of the Urals.

 

The ONLY thing holding back military strikes is fear of massive slaughter of S Korean civilians.

 

If civilians pulling out frightens the North then good.

 

Let the games begin.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Nobody said it was unique, but some countries have outright won wars, that would be unique in recent American history if that happened for them.

 

Go back in the topic, the original comment was specific to the USA.

I don't think that there were all that many countries that "outright won wars", in modern times. Given that no examples are given, and that discussing them will probably be off-topic, seems like another deflection.

[farcanell]

7 hours ago, baboon said:

There is nothing illegal about a military testing its weapons systems. 

Bear in mind that the good folks screaming 'Firing missiles over Japan!!!' omit the part about the missiles being in outer space at the time...

All well and good but for one thing... to wit... dodgy and unreliable guidance systems

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The stark difference being that when unification happened for East Germany that was what the people were asking for, do try to think just a little.

You think N Koreans wouldn't prefer the same solution? Of course they would. South Korea is not much different culturally but much wealthier! We're not asking them to link up with China, Japan or Russia! What's not too like?

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sorry you find my idea nonsensical. I'll forgive your rudeness.

 

In WW2 soviets moved most of their industry East of the Urals.

 

The ONLY thing holding back military strikes is fear of massive slaughter of S Korean civilians.

 

If civilians pulling out frightens the North then good.

 

Let the games begin.

 

Find a precedent for evacuating millions of civilians and deserting a capital city under a non-totalitarian regime, and doing so prior to hostilities commencing. Then perhaps you'll have a point.

 

There is no way to affect such a mass evacuation without long drawn preparations, providing alternate shelters and facilities. New locations could not be kept secret, and would not be out of NK's range.

 

A frightened Kim may not be a good idea. Could panic and start his bombardment well before civilians are out of harm's way, for example. 

[sirineou]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sorry you find my idea nonsensical. I'll forgive your rudeness.

 

In WW2 soviets moved most of their industry East of the Urals.

 

The ONLY thing holding back military strikes is fear of massive slaughter of S Korean civilians.

 

If civilians pulling out frightens the North then good.

 

Let the games begin.

Excellent idea  after all South Koreans Tipi toed out under cover of night, move all industry to WK (West Korea) 

And Then BOOM , sucker Kim we got you. 

I'm in!!

[Thaidream]

It is not impossible to evacuate a large city but in this case it would cause more harm then good. NKorea has theatre conventional missiles which can reach all of South Korea. They have a lot more than artillery but even so modern artillery can go much farther than 25 miles.  In addition, Seoul has a city beneath it  that has vast areas to accommodate the population and is equipped with  food; and other survival accouterments.  Moving the city simply increase the danger not to mention crippling South Korea's economy. Sorry, in this case not a feasible plan.